A Different Economic Measure: Quality of Life and an Economic Bill of Rights

"We have to come to a clear realization of that fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence." Words apparently promulgated with a secularist view that appears to equate "true freedom" with health, wealth, prosperity, the fountain of youth, and a "fearless" life. How did I miss those concepts in my reading of the Gospels?

"Something's wrong with an economy based on consumer spending"

Consumer spending is important to our economy, but our economy would probably be better off right now if people spent more of their discretionary income on investment.

"We need to figure out a new kind of gauge of well-being, of quality of life, not only for individuals in families, but for communities as well."

Nobody is suggesting that consumerism is a gauge for human life. There is, however, a correlation between economic output and well-being. I would love to hear the argument for less consumer spending and economic output leading to better well-being.

"Studies share that people who are rich in relationships, who are involved in sharing beyond themselves, live longer and have a higher quality of life."

Agreed. People can do that and still believe in economic indicators like consumer spending.

"doing things with them, together volunteering in homeless shelters or food programs, baking cookies and sharing them with a homeless shelter. A different measure."

Again, these things are good, but what do they have to do with our economic policy. Unfortunately we make economic policy based on baking cookies.

Roosevelt's Economic Bill of Rights assumes that rights are created and given to people by the government. I prefer a government that protects human rights not invents them and rations them off to its subjects. That's not economic freedom, that's dependency.

"Roosevelt's Economic Bill of Rights assumes that rights are created and given to people by the government. I prefer a government that protects human rights not invents them and rations them off to its subjects. That's not economic freedom, that's dependency."

This was exactly my gut reaction to this post. It's absolutely absurd to impose an arbitrary set of "rights" (which aren't simply entitlements) which come neither from Scripture nor the Constitution.

I am tired of hearing that we can save the world by spending more. Do you think that Christians who live in poor countries are not as entitled to freedom from poverty, fear and starvation as you are? It's too bad if we respond to the poor by saying, just spend some more so you can have more food and shelter and clothing. They don't have it to spend. Even poor people in this country don't have money to spend on discretionary items. Jesus said to care for the poor. Maybe if more of us tried to do that, it would help every to have enough to survive.

When Jesus gave the command to love your neighbor as yourself was it to improve your neighbor's lot in life or to improve your "lot" in "life"?

"Nobody is suggesting that consumerism is a gauge for human life. There is, however, a correlation between economic output and well-being. I would love to hear the argument for less consumer spending and economic output leading to better well-being."

Would that argument be that we don't NEED to get the latest model of car, latest clothes, electronic toy, phone or Blackberry type device, etc? Or am I missing your point?
For some people, not being so hooked on the latest this or that could improve their life: aren't greed and envy two of the deadly sins?

Roosevelt's 'rights' are familiar to me as Christian values because the Catholic Church considers these to be duties of a civil society and specific duties of the state.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance." 2288

"Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants. For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment." 2433

"A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages." 2434

"Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."

"By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them." 1897

"Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society. 1898

Consumer spending is important to our economy, but our economy would probably be better off right now if people spent more of their discretionary income on investment.

That's not how our economic culture works. That, of course, was the rationale behind "supply-side economics"; trouble is that folks want their goods and services good, cheap and fast and don't care to wait to build wealth etc.

Unfortunately we make economic policy based on baking cookies.

The point is that everything cannot be reduced to mere economics, especially when it comes to numbers. Marxism's basic flaw is that it suggests that it could.

I think these rights are just the enunciation of the detailed outcome of an economic model that doesn't exploit people based upon socioeconomic class, race, ethnic background gender, etc. It that model existed, no one would need to list such rights because these things would just happen. Each item listed isn't as important as the bigger concept (the rich not exploiting the poor or the powerful not taking advantage of the powerless).

I suppose it can still be argued that the bigger concept of economic justice still isn't "biblical", but I'll leave that to y'all.

I see caring for the poor also as changing systems so that they can make their own way. When you simply give you're still in control; as a result, they still have to depend on your charity. But when people make justice their goal, where the poor can make their own way and not depend on handouts from either the government or private charity, that's so much better -- because at some point they can thus turn around and give to someone else.

Why stop at FDR's list? Why not guarantee the rights of everyone to have an automobile, free gasoline, and unencumbered transportation rights? Why not guarantee that we all can become better looking through universal plastic surgery and tanning salon access? We all know that only the good looking actors get the most lucrative jobs... why not open that up for everyone?

I say, if the government is going to guarantee "rights," let's think big!

A truly free market has been the closest thing we have in human history that gets close to this, as insufficient as it is for the tastes and desires of many. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any other type of socio-economic system in the history of mankind.

I absolutely agree with you. Too many people are too busy hanging on to what they have that they have no time to help anyone less fortunate in any way. And forget changing systems--that might mean they would have less and someone else would have more. Unfortunately, I have found this all too often to be true in churches as well as outside the church. The prevailing opinion in my own church seems to be that the poor and unfortunate are in that situation because they deserve it. If you are sick, or disabled or lose your job or have an accident or whatever, it is your own fault. Sometimes the help just needs to be a smile or a shared meal or a few minutes of talking. I have been told by some in my church that I am a socialist and should not be able to attend that church. All because I want to change the way we deal with those who are not rich.

As I read Roosevelt's "Economic Bill of Rights," I see an accurate reflection of what I find in God's Word (including the Torah, Wisdom literature, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Epistles) concerning the kind of conditions that would exist where God's will is "done on earth as it is in heaven." And I read see the absence of these things repeatedly condemned by God in judgements of not only God's people but also societies/nations. I do believe that people will not/cannot experience "true freedom" apart from relationship with God and I believe that people can and do experience God's grace/peace/security in the midst of any economic or political situation through faith in Christ. But I continue to experience a "burden" or sense of calling - which I attribute to the work of God's Spirit in my life - that as one who accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord and who lives in this nation where I can participate in our local and national government, I must do the following:
1. Participate in the proclaimation of the Good News of Jesus through the sharing of the message of salvation and setting an example as a citizen of God's Kingdom;
2. Advocate for and work toward a society in which all people are cared for and can experience these rights. (I will add that there is a clear degree of differentiation between what is included in the Economic Bill of Rights versus things such as having a car, gasoline, good looks, etc!!)
I will also add that although I am not a Catholic, I agree with everything "neruo nurse" quoted and will say without reservation that Dorothy Day is my favorite "heroine" of the faith and one of the greatest saints of the 20th Century.

"Human rights" were initially conceived as limits upon the government's power to rule. In both the US Constitution and liberal political theory, rights are stated in the negative ("Congress shall make no law. . ."), because they were intended to restrain the government, not to call an improved society into being. Of course, the government should rule for the benefit of its citizens, but there are limits to the power the government can exercise to achieve even perfectly legitimate goals. We call those limits "rights".

To talk about a certain economic state of affairs as a "right" dilutes the meaning of the term. Certainly a government should seek to improve the material well-being of its citizens; but it shouldn't do so by limiting speech or by taking private property without due process of law. To call a "useful and remunerative job" a "right" suggests that it must be weighed in the balance against other human rights, like freedom of speech and due process of law. In turn, that assumes a government with an unlimited scope of power; just what the liberal political theorists and the writers of the US Constitution tried to avoid by asserting basic human rights.

can be understood as a Christian heresy, complete with eschatology. Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism and all the liberal and humane movements and institutions have sprung up on European soil, the soil seeded and fertilized by such true Christians as Francis of Assisi and William Wilberforce down through the past 2000 years. Woman's Suffrage, Feminism, Abolition, the Civil Rights movement, schools, private and public, hospitals, orphanges, Social Security, public healthcare

And it only took a World War to jumpstart FDR's economy to make progress in accomplishing these "rights" in any extent.

These rights of people and responsibilities of states are part of Cuban, Nicaraguan, Venezuelan, abd Bolivian socio-political thought and initiative in the Bolivarian revolution and the Alba initiativeand are massively campaigned against by neoliberals, neocons, and the U.S. government.

But it can be abused, which is where the Biblical prophets came in. Last night I was reading the Isaiah passage where folks were "adding house to house and field to field" to a point where no one else could live in it. The point is that when the wealthy have all the power and use it to push people around God gets lost -- and then you have the "prosperity gospel,." which of course is no gospel at all.

"I have been told by some in my church that I am a socialist and should not be able to attend that church."

Wow, what does that say about that person's understanding about the Church as Christ's body? Remember how Paul said we are all parts of one body? I wonder which part of the body that person represents

You rock!

I'm sure you are right about that. I'm not sure how long I want to keep attending this church, but the pastors and their sermons are so good and I have received so much knowledge and help from them, that I hate to be chased off by a few people that don't really know what they are talking about.

Agreed. Not sure that a free market means "the wealthy have all the power," though.

I think you're on to something here. Why do we assume that government has the power to provide and manage and otherwise control society to make it "better" when every major attempt to do so has resulted in impoverishment and in some countries violence?