|
|
Home |
 |
|---|
1) SOCIALIST AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
In order to understand the difference between socialist and democratic
rights, it is necessary
to examine samples of both. To this end, copies of the US Bill
of Rights and the USSR Bill
of Rights are incorporated into this document.
When compared, there are significant differences between these two documents.
The US
Bill of Rights may be said to have only one part, the USSR Bill of
Rights may be said to
have three parts. The USSR has a selection of rights which appear
to be the same as the US
Bill of rights save that they are limited in a manner that occurs in
the US Bill of rights only
when referring to persons under active military service or time of
war. Some are specifically
limited to promotion of communism, as in the right of association,
a limitation which in
practice also limited the other rights. Conspicuosly missing
is the right to keep and bear
arms. A section of the USSR Bill missing from the US Bill is
the section listing the duties of
citizens. These differences establish clearly the difference
between Liberty in a Democracy
and liberty in a Socialist State and further proscribe the freedom
of the citizens by
prescribing how they must act. In a Socialist State, the citizens
are held, by their constitution
under a discipline that in a Democracy only applies to the military
and in some instances in
time of war. The third section of the Soviet Bill, like the list
of duties is missing from the US
Bill of Rights. This section guarantees not freedom from state
interference in their lives, but
of material benefits from the state. It guarantees as rights,
work with pay, rest, health care,
welfare, housing and education. In other words it guarantees
material wellbeing. As these
rights are missing from the US Bill of Rights, they must be considered
as solely socialist
rights. Thus, the statement, a socialist right is one which guarantees
the material welfare of
the citizens follows.
We now know what a socialist right is. What is a democratic right?
This question may be
answered by examination of the US Bill of Rights. The rights
guaranteed fall into three
main categories, things the citizens can do, things the state cannot
do and things the state
must do. All are designed to guarantee the liberty of the citizens.
They fall into two other
categories, natural rights, i.e. rights that are necessary to man because
of his nature, and
necessary rights, rights that are necessary to a citizens in a democracy
to forestall tyranny
and ensure liberty, which in detail are known to be necessary from
the history of tyranny.
Freedom of religion is a natural right, freedom of assembly and guarantee
of trial by jury are
necessary rights. Thus democratic rights define what a state
cannot do, must do, and things
the citizen can do, and they are rights because they satisfy a natural
human need or are
necessary to protect liberty and guard against tyranny. What,
however, is the difference
between a socialist right and a democratic right?
By guaranteeing liberty and freedom from tyranny, democratic rights
guarantee the right to
try, they guarantee opportunity, they do not guarantee success.
Socialist rights guarantee
material security. It is by examining a right, in the light of
this difference that we can
determine if a right is a socialist right or a democratic right.
Let us look at the right to work in the Soviet constitution.
"Article 40 [Work]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed
employment and pay
in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work, and not
below the state-established
minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession,
type of job and work in
accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education,
with due account of the
needs of society."
Is there a guaranteed material outcome? Maybe, depending on how
you read it, the outcome
is dependent on the willingness to work. Or, regardless of work,
a certain minimum will
never be violated. It is not surprising that a right appropriate
to a democracy appears
possibly socialist when in a socialist document.
Let's try a democratic version.
The right to work of a citizen shall not be abridged where possible,
and where federal and
local laws have adridged this right, the right will be guaranteed to
the citizen, work will be
provided and if the citizen performs the work he shall be paid.
Is there a guaranteed material outcome? No, unless work is done,
no money is gained. The
material gain from a job is not the job, it's the paycheck. When
the paycheck is conditional
upon the citizens earning it, it is not guaranteed. Thus, this
is not a socialist right.
Is it a democratic right? Well, we noted above that democratic
rights are either natural
rights or necessary rights. Also that they either specify things
the state cannot do, or things
the citizen can do, or as in trial by jury, things the state must do.
It falls into the category of things the state cannot do, and things
it must do. However, this
does not make it a democratic right. In order to be a democratic
right, is must also be either
a natural right, as freedom of religion, or a necessary right, as jury
trial.
It is a close paralel to the right to trial by jury, as it specifies
actions the state must
undertake, at expense to the state and thus to taxpayers. Therefore
it is possible to say that it
could be a democratic right. In order to be one it must be either
a natural right necessary
from the nature of man, or a necessary right, demonstrated by history
to be necessary to
defend liberty from tyranny and maintain the republic. These
things will be demonstrated.
Does this right automatically force the state to provide employment
for its citizens? As
worded, this only becomes necessary if federal and local laws
are violating a citizens natural
right to work. In order for the federal government to be obligated
to provide work under this
right, it would be necessary to demonstrate that federal and local
laws are infringing the right
to work in a manner that they did not at previous times in the history
of the United States.
This will also be demonstrated.
2) NATURAL RIGHT
A natural right is one that derives from the needs of man dictated by
his nature. To define
natural rights, one must first define that part of the nature of man
which the right applies to.
In order to define man, we must consider evolution, and mans natural
state as a hunter
gatherer to determine what nature provided and which society therefore
should not deny. In
a hunter/gatherer society, everyone has a job provided by nature.
In order to go to work, one
must only start hunting or gathering. There is no need to go
job hunting first. Every human
being is prepared by instinct to expect that if they get up, do the
necessary tasks, they will be
able to provide for themselves barring acts of nature like flood, etc.
Man in his natural state
has a job guaranteed to him. The right to work is provided in
nature. Nature does not
provide a man sitting and doing nothing with food, it does not provide
him with shelter, it
does not give him free medical care. He must work for all of
these, however, the chance to
acquire these things by work is supplied in nature. He is never
denied by unemployment,
economic problems or other artificial social effects the opportunity
to work for his keep.
Having evolved in this circumstance, man has a need for this automatic
guarantee of work.
The right to work is a natural right. As you can see when compared
to other socialist rights
in a natural state, the right to work is clearly in a very different
class, and a very different
kind of right than those which are really socialist rights. It
is not a socialist right. Does man
have a need to work? Certainly, working is the natural way through
which he satisfies his
other needs. The right to work is a natural right of man and
a democratic right.
At this point, we have run into a problem. Nature does not provide
a man with food,
clothing, shelter, etc. without effort. Yet we stated earlier
that a natural right is one derived
from the needs of man dictated by his nature. It is mans nature
to need food, water, clothing,
etc. Does he then not have a natural right to these things?
Nature does not provide him with these things without his own effort.
He must work and
strive to attain them in nature. Obviously he has a natural need
for the opportunity to work
for them, with a reasonable guarantee of success in most circumstances,
for this is what
nature provides and is natural to him.
Being guaranteed these things by the state when they are not contingent
upon his effort is not
natural. He does not have a need for these things givento him
without work, for nature
supplies them only through his efforts. Thus natural law does
not support his natural rights
to these needs being satisfied independent of his own labor or by the
labor of others.
Socialist rights which attempt to offer such a guarantee are not natural
rights, and indeed
contrary to natural law.
It is plausible to suppose that an artificial and unnatural environment
will prove harmful to a
lifeform where it differs from nature. It is therefore plausible
to suppose that socialist rights,
creating an artificial and unnatural means of obtaining natural needs
is harmful to the mental
and emotional health of the citizen. For, by supplying these
things independent of a citizens
own efforts, it denies the citizen his appropriate natural right to
earn them by his own efforts
as his nature requires for his own wellbeing, and with them to achieve
self respect, and a
sense personal worth and independence.
It is likewise plausible to suppose that a right to work which attempts
to duplicate the
guarantees in nature is beneficial to the mental and emotional health
of the citizen, allowing
him greater self respect and independence than total dependence on
the state does.
In summary, socialist rights are bad for the mental and emotional health
of the citizen, are
not natural rights and are contrary to natural law. The right
to work, a democratic right
which guarantees a measure of opportunity to earn ones own support
by ones own effort
approximately equal to that of nature is a natural right, and denial
of this right to a citizen is
a violation of natural law.
However, in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty
and pursuit of
happiness are termed unalienable rights. How does the right to
work compare? Liberty
implies the right to work, for without work and the benefits so obtained,
how can one
exercise ones liberty. Without work one cannot be free of dependence
on others. Work is
likewise essential to the pursuit of happiness, for how can one pursue
happiness without the
emotional, psychological and economic benefits of work? The rights
to liberty, work, and
pursuit of happiness are all aspects of one larger right, the right
to a guarantee of opportunity
in life by society similar to those offered by nature. One cannot
be lost without crippling or
destroying the other two. The right to work is clearly an unalienable
right in the same
category as the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness.
3) A TRADITIONAL AMERICAN RIGHT
The right to work is guaranteed to man in a natural state. This
guarantee derives from
nature. It is not specifically guaranteed in the bill of rights
of the United States. This is
because it was guaranteed by two things at the time the Revolutionary
War, the
Constitutional Congress and the approval of the first ten amendments
to the Constitution. It
was guaranteed by a primarily rural population and the existence of
the frontier. Any person
living on a farm could get up, plow and sow, and work to earn his own
subsistence. Any
person not owning a farm could walk a few miles further west, and make
his own farm.
There was no conceivable way, short of binding men in chains, of stopping
someone willing
to work for their living from working for their living.
However, the British Crown did attempt to do so. It attempted
to stop further expansion into
the frontier by quoting from the Declaration of Independence “...raising
the conditions of
new appropriations of lands”. This attempt to stop further expansion
westward was one of
the major complaints of the Colonies against the Crown. Through
most of the history of the
United States, the population has been largely rural, and expansion
west has continued until
it could do so no more.
The violation of the right to work by the British Crown was one of the
causes of the
Revolutionary War, and it has continued to be exercised through most
of the history of the
United States.
The right to work was one of the natural (unalienable) rights fought
for by our Founding
Fathers in the Revolutionary War and one that has been exercised traditionally
in our history
by all Americans willing to face the challenge of doing so.
As such, it is protected by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution.
“IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.”
In other words, those rights traditionally exercised by the people are
still guaranteed to them
even though not specifically listed.
In the absence of the frontier and a primarily rural population, the
right to work is subject to
violation in a way inconceivable at the time of our nations founding.
It must be protected, or
the American Spirit, the willingness to work and take life on our own
shoulders will wither
and die. If on the other hand, the opportunity to work is guaranteed,
then most persons will
work, and the habit of working and making ones own way will remain
a part of the
American Character.
4) A NECESSARY RIGHT
Our Senate is named after the Senate of Republican Rome. Cicero
one of the noblest orators
and most republican statesmen of Rome described the government of Republican
Rome in
his work, “Of the Commonwealth”. The fundamental features of
the government of the
United States are so clearly laid out in this document, that Cicero
could be called the
Grandfather of the United States. It is true that there are differences,
the House of
Representatives in addition to the Senate, etc. However, in general,
the provisions in the
government of the United States provide all things that Cicero specified
as necessary save
one. Cicero maintained in his “Of the Commonwealth” that an appropriate
guarantee for the
welfare of the commons must exist.
As we have already seen, this guarantee was provided in our early history
by the right to
work guaranteed by the frontier and a rural economy. In these
areas, however, Rome was
more like the United States today than in our early history.
Its population was urban, and
unable to farm its own food. Frequently Roman history was threatened
by the failure of the
city to bring grain from the provinces to provide bread for its people.
The appropriate
guarantee for the welfare of the commons provided by Rome has become
infamous
throughout history as “Bread and Circuses”. The circuses were
the famous bloody sport of
the Colisseum where gladiators slew one another and wild beasts, and
Christians were fed to
the lions. The ugliness of Bread and Circuses was not obvious
in Ciceros day. It was the
tool of tyrants used to buy the favor of the mob. It was a welfare
system, akin to the
‘socialist rights’ of communism. The offer of a guarantee of
food and entertainment for
nothing but political support, not ones own labor.
As we saw in part 2 of this paper, such a provision is unnatural and
plausibly unhealthy for
men designed by nature to make their own way and earn their own keep.
A mob which
takes its bread by threatening to riot is like a bandit who steals
food from a farmer. It works
for an hour or a few minutes to steal what another spent months sewing
and reaping. All of
its labor is violence. Ruling by brute force itself, it is prepared
to be ruled by brute force.
Being a tyrant, it understands and accepts only tyranny as its government.
There is no sense
of fairness or of justice for it gets its bread by violence, and cannot
conceive of such matters.
Cicero, who was a wise and noble man, and who could be called the grandfather
of our
country, believed that the appropriate guarantee for the welfare of
the commons practiced by
the Republic was a good thing. Cicero suffered the great tragedy
of seeing his beloved
Republic fall into the hands of tyrants and the lesser tragedy of being
assasinated by a tyrant.
This was the product of bread and circuses.
Can we then ignore Ciceros point that a state must provide an appropriate
guarantee for the
welfare of the commons? No. Classical discussion of government
is based upon a unique
opportunity for the study of different modes of government. Greece
was divided into city
states, a peson could travel from one city to another, and in the space
of a few years observe
many different kinds of government, and see, in the course of a lifetime
what caused their
rise and what caused their fall. This unique opportunity, taken
advantage of by the greeks
and nicely formalized in his “Of the Commonwealth” by Cicero has provided
much of the
basis of our own government. One that has been remarkably successful.
To ignore the idea that an appropriate guarantee of the welfare of the
commons is necessary
for social stability in a highly urbanized state is unsafe. The
history of the nineteenth and
twentieth century clearly prove this. The industrial revolution
of the nineteenth century
created a highly urbanized population with no guarantee of welfare
for the commons.
Working conditions were inhumane to a point that is inconceivable in
our day, except in the
prison camps of dictators. This led to a revolt, on the part
of both the intellectuals and the
masses. Communism and Socialism were born, and the history of
the twentieth century has
been entirely forged by the struggle with these forces. Hitler
was an anticommunist dictator,
without the threat of communism, he might well have never risen to
power. Stalin and Mao,
responsible for the deaths of more than 50 millions between them were
communist dictators.
Like the tyrants of ancient Rome, these dictators came to power by
promising the people
bread, regardless of whether they earned it or not.
The history of the twentieth century clearly confirms that if an appropriate
guarantee of the
welfare of the commons is not provided to a highly urbanized population,
that population
will revolt when times get bad, usually placing a dictator in charge.
We cannot ignore the
need for an appropriate guarantee for the welfare of the commons.
If our Founding Fathers were today to descend from the heavens in which
I am confident
they reside, and be apprised of the history of communism and the history
of the twentieth
century, they who modeled the United States so closely upon classical
government theory
would immediately recognize that an appropriate guarantee for the welfare
of the commons
was needed. Yet, they did not slavishly follow the model of Rome
when they laid out the
foundation of our government, and they would not slavishly follow it
in this instance.
Instead, they would debate on what was truly appropriate to a democratic
nation. A
guarantee of bread, absolutely necessary, but bread without work, absolutely
not. Having
themselves fought the British Crown for the right to work guaranteed
by the frontier when it
was violated, they would be willing to, and recognize the necessity
of guaranteeing bread to
those willing to work for it.
People are the product of evolution. If you provide a guarantee
of opportunity roughly equal
to that guaranteed to a hunter/gatherer by nature, they will be content
and not revolt. If you
provide a guarantee of bread without work, they will become a political
mob, and seek more
and more for less and less eventually setting the tyrant who promises
the most in charge. If
you refuse to provide any guarantee at all, they will revolt, and again
probably raise up a
tyrant to set over them.
Only by providing a guarantee of opportunity roughly equivalent to that
in nature, only by
providing a guaranteed right to work can you defend yourself from eventual
tyranny.
A right to work is like a plow, appropriate to the husbandry of a free
and democratic
republic. Socialist rights, bread and circuses, are like a sword,
a sword that tyrants will use
to slay liberty and destroy the republic. If a right to work
is not implemented, and left laying
unused in the field, then in times of trouble, tyrants will arise,
and using the promise of bread
like a sword will slay our sacred liberty and destroy our republic.
Going from the welfare system to a right to work is like beating the
swords of tyrants into the
plowshares of liberty and self reliance.
The right to work is a necessary right, one that must be implemented,
protected, and indeed
guaranteed if our democratic republic is to survive.
5) BIBLICAL LAW
It is apparent to reason of the faithful that all natural rights must
have been provided for in
ancient Israel by God, for he is a loving father and would not deny
his chosen people that
necessary for their needs. Thus, God must have provided for the
right to work of those in
Israel who would otherwise have been deprived of it. Israel was
a land of milk and honey,
for most able bodied men, the opportunity to work was guaranteed by
being farmers,
shepherds, etc. There were, however, the strangers, the homeless
and the poor, who being
unable to work for their own food on their own land were provided for
thusly:
Leviticus 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land thou shalt
not wholly reap the
corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of they
harvest. And thou shalt
not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy
vineyard; thou shalt
leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God.
By making this law, God provided to the poor of Israel a guarantee of
the right to work
almost exactly the same as was guaranteed a hunter/gatherer in a natural
state. Nature and
man having been created by God.
He did not say, gather the gleanings of the fields and carry them to
the poor where they sit
idle and jobless and watch them trade the gleanings for drugs.
He said to leave the gleanings
in the field, and let the poor gather them with the labor of their
own hands.
There are other provisions for charity in the Bible for those who are
in need. This was Gods
provision for the welfare of the ablebodied poor. Give them the
right to gather their own
food. God knew that work was as necessary to men who he had created
as food, and that
food earned by effort is better for the man than that received without
work.
The right to work is indeed the law of God, not bread and circuses,
not welfare, but the right
to work. The taxes paid to guarantee such a right are the gleanings
from the fields of they
taxpayers.
SUMMARY
I hope that I have plausibly demonstrated the five points I set out
in the beginning that 1) the
right to work is appropriate to a democracy and that while in some
forms might be a socialist
right, in other forms it is a democratic right and not socialist, 2)
the right to work is a natural
right of mankind of the type specified in the Declaration of Independence
akin to the right to
life and liberty, 3) the right to work is a traditional American right,
that infringement of the
natural right was one of the complaints of the Founding Fathers against
the British Crown
and one of the causes of the Revolutionary War and that in one form
or another that natural
right has been traditionally exercised by American Citizens for most
of our nations history,
4) the right to work is a necessary right, i.e. a right that must be
guaranteed for the
continuance of liberty and the republic, and 5) that the
right to work is fulfilment of
Biblical Law.
These things having been demonstrated, it should be clear to all that
an appropriate
guarantee of the right to work is necessary for our future.
The United States Bill of Rights.
The Ten Original Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789
Ratified December 15, 1791
I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service
in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him;
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court
of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
The Soviet Bill of Rights
Article 39 [Freedom]
(1) Citizens of the USSR enjoy in full the social, economic, political
and personal rights and
freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR
and by Soviet laws.
The socialist system ensures enlargement of the rights and freedoms
of citizens and
continuous improvement of their living standards as social, economic,
and cultural
development
programs are fulfilled.
(2) Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be
to the detriment of the
interests of society or the state, or
infringe the rights of other citizens.
Article 40 [Work]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed
employment and pay
in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below
the state-established
minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession,
type of job and work in
accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education,
with due account of the
needs of society.
(2) This right is ensured by the socialist economic system, steady
growth of the productive
forces, free vocational and professional training, improvement of skills,
training in new
trades or professions, and development of the systems of vocational
guidance and job placement.
Article 41 [Rest]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure.
(2) This right is ensured by the establishment of a working week not
exceeding 41 hours, for
workers and other employees, a shorter working day in a number of trades
and industries,
and shorter hours for night work; by the provision of paid annual holidays,
weekly days of
rest, extension of the network of cultural, educational, and health-building
institutions, and
the
development on a mass scale of sport, physical culture, and camping
and tourism; by the
provision of neighborhood recreational facilities, and of other opportunities
for rational use
of free time.
(3) The length of collective farmers' working and leisure time is established
by their
collective farms.
Article 42 [Health]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.
(2) This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided
by state health institutions;
by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions;
by the
development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying
out broad
prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special
care for the
health of the rising
generation, including prohibition of child labor, excluding the work
done by children as part
of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and
reduce the incidence of
disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.
Article 43 [Welfare]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old age,
in sickness, and in the
event of complete or partial disability or loss of the breadwinner.
(2) The right is guaranteed by social insurance of workers and other
employees and
collective farmers; by allowances for temporary disability; by the
provision by the state or by
collective farms of retirement pensions, disability pensions, and pensions
for loss of the
breadwinner; by providing employment for the partially disabled; by
care for the elderly and
the disabled; and by other forms of social security.
Article 44 [Housing]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the rights to housing.
(2) This right is ensured by the development and upkeep of state and
socially-owned
housing; by assistance for cooperative and individual house building;
by fair distribution,
under public control, of the housing that becomes available through
fulfillment of the
program of building well-appointed dwellings, and by low rents and
low charges for utility
services. Citizens of the USSR shall take good care of the housing
allocated to them.
Article 45 [Education]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to education.
(2) This right is ensured by free provision of all forms of education,
by the institution of
universal, compulsory secondary education, and broad development of
vocational,
specialized secondary, and higher education, in which instruction is
oriented toward practical
activity and production; by the development of extramural, correspondence
and evening
courses, by the
provision of state scholarships and grants and privileges for students;
by the free issue of
school textbooks; by the opportunity to attend a school where teaching
is in the native
language; and by the provision of facilities for self-education.
Article 46 [Culture]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to enjoy cultural benefits.
(2) This rights is ensured by broad access to the cultural treasures
of their own land and of
the world that are preserved in state and other public collections;
by the development and fair
distribution of cultural and educational institutions throughout the
country; by developing
television and radio broadcasting and the publishing of books, newspapers
and periodicals,
and by
extending the free library service; and by expanding cultural exchanges
with other countries.
Article 47 [Research]
(1) Citizens of the USSR, in accordance with the aims of building communism,
are
guaranteed freedom of scientific, technical, and artistic work. This
freedom is ensured by
broadening scientific research, encouraging invention and innovation,
and developing
literature and the arts. The state provides the necessary material
conditions for this and
support for voluntary
societies and unions of workers in the arts, organizes introduction
of inventions and
innovations in production and other spheres of activity.
(2) The rights of authors, inventors and innovators are protected by
the state.
Article 48 [Public Affairs]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to take part in the management
and administration of
state and public affairs and in the discussion and adoption of laws
and measures of
All-Union and local significance.
(2) This right is ensured by the opportunity to vote and to be elected
to Soviets of People's
Deputies and other elective state bodies, to take part in nationwide
discussions and
referendums, in people's control, in the work of state bodies, public
organizations, and local
community groups, and in meetings at places of work or residence.
Article 49 [Proposals]
(1) Every citizen of the USSR has the right to submit proposals to
state bodies and public
organizations for improving their activity, and to criticize shortcomings
in their work.
(2) Officials are obliged, within established time-limits, to examine
citizens' proposals and
requests, to reply to them, and to take appropriate action.
(3) Persecution for criticism is prohibited. Persons guilty of such
persecution shall be called
to account.
Article 50 [Expression]
(1) In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to
strengthen and develop the
socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech,
of the press, and of
assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.
(2) Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public
buildings, streets, and
squares at the disposal of the working people and their organizations,
by broad dissemination
of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television,
and radio.
Article 51 [Association]
(1) In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of
the USSR have the right
to associate in public organizations that promote their political activity
and initiative and
satisfaction of their various interests.
(2) Public organizations are guaranteed conditions for successfully
performing the functions
defined in their rules.
Article 52 [Religion]
(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that
is, the right to profess
or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or
atheistic propaganda.
Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school
from the church.
Article 53 [Family, Marriage]
(1) The family enjoys the protection of the state.
(2) Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man;
the spouses are
completely equal in their family relations.
(3) The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad
system of child-care
institutions, by organizing and improving communal services and public
catering, by paying
grants on the birth of a child, by providing children's allowances
and benefits for large
families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance.
Article 54 [Personal Freedom]
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No
one may be arrested
except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.
Article 55 [Home]
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one
may, without lawful
grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.
Article 56 [Privacy]
The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations,
and
telegraphic communications is protected by law.
Article 57 [Legal Remedies]
(1) Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms
of citizens are the
duty of all state bodies, public organizations, and officials.
(2) Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts
against encroachments on
their honor and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and
property.
Article 58 [Complaint]
(1) Citizens of the USSR have the right to lodge a complaint against
the actions of officials,
state bodies and public bodies. Complaints shall be examined according
to the procedure and
within the time-limit established by law.
(2) Actions by officials that contravene the law or exceed their powers,
and infringe the
rights of citizens, may be appealed against in a court in the manner
prescribed by law.
(3) Citizens of the USSR have the right to compensation for damage
resulting from unlawful
actions by state organizations and public organizations, or by officials
in the performance of
their duties.
Article 59 [General]
(1) Citizens' exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable
from the performance of
their duties and obligations.
(2) Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of
the USSR and Soviet
laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the
honor and dignity of
Soviet citizenship.
Article 60 [Duty to Work]
It is the duty of, and matter of honor for, every able-bodied citizen
of the USSR to work
conscientiously in his chosen, socially useful occupation, and strictly
to observe labor
discipline. Evasion of socially useful work is incompatible with the
principles of
socialist society.
Article 61 [Socialist Property]
(1) Citizens of the USSR are obliged to preserve and protect socialist
property. It is the duty
of a citizen of the USSR to combat misappropriation and squandering
of state and
socially-owned property and to make thrifty use of the people's wealth.
(2) Persons encroaching in any way on socialist property shall be punished
according to the
law.
Article 62 [Interest of State]
(1) Citizens of the USSR are obliged to safeguard the interests of
the Soviet state, and to
enhance its power and prestige.
(2) Defence of the Socialist Motherland is the sacred duty of every
citizen of the USSR.
(3) Betrayal of the Motherland is the gravest of crimes against the
people.
Article 63 [Military Service]
Military service in the ranks of the Armed Forces of the USSR is an
honorable duty of Soviet
citizens.
Article 64 [Peacekeeping Duty]
It is the duty of every citizen of the USSR to respect the national
dignity of other citizens,
and to strengthen friendship of the nations and nationalities of the
multinational Soviet state.
Article 65 [Social Behavior]
A citizen of the USSR is obliged to respect the rights and lawful interests
of other persons, to
be uncompromising toward anti-social behavior, and to help maintain
public order.
Article 66 [Childcare]
Citizens of the USSR are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing
of children, to
train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members
of socialist society.
Children are obliged to care for their parents and help them.
Article 67 [Protection of Nature]
Citizens of the USSR are obliged to protect nature and conserve its
riches.
Article 68 [Preservation of Culture]
Concern for the preservation of historical monuments and other cultural
values is a duty and
obligation of citizens of the USSR.
Article 69 [Internationalist Duties]
It is the internationalist duty of citizens of the USSR to promote
friendship and cooperation
with peoples of other lands and help maintain and strengthen world
peace.
Top
The Bill of Rights of the Soviet Union included the Right to Work among
the rights of its citizens. The problem with this is that it places the
government in the position of guaranteeing employment, and in times of
low employment, this means the government must pay lots and lots of people
to work. These people are not a part of a competitive free market economy,
they are doing nothing and collecting a paycheck from the government. There
is relatively little difference between right to work and welfare.
On the other hand, a competitive free market economy needs everybody in the population to be able to participate actively in the economy. The larger the percentage of persons unable to participate, the lower the standard of living, and the slower the economy. It would appear on the surface that the government could ensure maximum participation in the economy by its citizens by guaranteeing a livable minimum wage, and a right to work. This would keep all persons employed, and participating in the consumer economy.
The problem with this, is that people who get paid to do nothing, or to do makework, are not much better for an economy than people who sit around and draw welfare. Face it, sitting around and drinking coffee in a government office, or sitting around at home and watching tv to collect a government check are not really different things.
So where do I stand, replace welfare with a work for money system, just cancel welfare altogether. Shoot the poor because they are unsightly. No, I am going to speculate on how a right to work system could effectively replace the welfare and unemployment compensation systems, while integrating people into the civilian economy, providing guaranteed employment, providing some skill and ojt opportunities, helping unwed mothers, costing less than the current system, solve the homeless problem, and without a highly paid government bureacracy. Impossible, of course it is. Nothing ever works in real life as well as it does on paper.
However, there are some ideas that might help. First, do we really want to create a huge culture of people whose idea of employment is to collect a government check for make work? No. So instead of putting the government into the makework to keep people employed business, I would recommend putting the government into the labor brokerage business. In every town in america there are small businesses that broker labor. People who need work show up, and employers show up, and the small businesses connect the two for temporary employment. The workers receive minimum wage from the small business, and the business itself is paid eight or ten dollars an hour for the workers they supply.
Instead of making work for everyone on welfare, have them show up at a government office. Let the government rent them out at minimum wage plus 25% and pay them minimum wage minus 25 cents. Persons in this system will only be doing make work for the government when real work in the civilian economy is not available. The money that the government is paid for their work when real work is available will help to defray the cost of the system overall. This will cost a whole lot less than anything the government is likely to come up with on its own.
If the government does a pure makework program, the people involved are not exposed to the civilian economy. They will tend to look for ways to advance in the governments makework bureacracy. You will just have another big government bureacracy. In a labor brokerage system, the persons work a variety of jobs in the civilian economy. They meet potential employers in the civilian economy. They get on the job training and experience at work in the civilian economy. They can ask other workers they meet on the job how those workers got their job. A labor brokerage program will integrate unemployed persons into the civilian economy. A pure makework program cannot do that nearly as well.
Pay the workers 25 cents an hour LESS than minimum wage, and charge minimum wage +25% for their services. Why? If an employer is using a part time laborer 30 hours a week, and it costs him minimum wage + 25% to pay for that labor, he might as well hire the worker full time at minimum wage. He will get ten more hours of labor for his money. The worker will get a 25 cent an hour pay raise. Both employer and worker are motivated to move workers out of the governments employment program as fast as possible. This program provides a greased ramp for sliding people from the government work program into the civilian work force. Of course, the extra 25% helps to defray the cost to the government of the program.
What about all those neat things that a government makework program can do for local cities and states. Cleaning up, clearing things, etc. Simple, the local city or state can hire the workers on the same terms as any other employer. Minimum wage +25%. If the president declares an area a disaster area, the federal government might waive these costs.
OK, lets face it. These people are not going to be needed by local employers all the time. In fact, most of the time, they are going to be doing makework. How do we handle that? Well, I like a military model. A standing army has to keep its personnel busy 25 hours a day 400 days a year, all year long while they wait for real work, i.e. a war to come along. The army is good at it.
Set up the system on a military structure. Mandatory physical fitness, no dress code or hair standards, uniforms cost money, mandatory drill and ceremony, they can march in their municipal parades. Units can be named after the area they serve. Job training opportunities, offer access to the military store of correspondence courses to be completed on the job. Members of the cadre, the supervisors and administrators of the system will wear uniforms or emblems of rank. Persons employed will salute, stand at attention, and parade rest, say yes sir, and yes sergeant. Good order and discipline will be maintained. Failure to accomplish missions assigned by a cadre member will result in disciplinary action. I.E. failing to work for an hour can result in a fine of one hours pay. No money for nothing.
Of course, this system is going to need a cadre. It is going to need administrators and supervisors. Preferably with military experience. Well, I hate the idea of creating another huge highly paid government bureacracy, filled with huge, highly paid government bureacrats. So, try this idea on for size. Fill the cadre with personnel already retired from jobs in the government or civil sector. Pay them exactly the same as everyone else in the employment corp. Minimum wage minus 25 cents an hour. No retirement plan, no health plan, no paid vacations, none of that. Ask people who are retired, and collecting a pay check already to volunteer to help make the system work. Pay them, an honorarium for their services, minimum wage -25 cents an hour. They get out of the house, get to do something important for their country. The country gets a really good, highly trained and experienced cadre really cheap.
Local units can set up their own work and training schedules. Administrators should try to create units that can provide effective training by grouping MOS's together. An MOS is a military occupational specialty. Thus, you could put persons who worked as mechanics in the army in a local employment company, they could provide practical training in auto repair, tool use and care, etc. During the time that the 'privates' are not occupied in civil sector jobs, or physical training, or drill and ceremony. Local businesses could be given tax breaks for contributing needed training space or materials. A unit set up for such training by local business contributions could be matched by the government with pay minimum wage -25 cents an hour for the retired person providing the training. If you are providing guaranteed employment, it pays you to provide job training as part of that makework, because it gets people off your payroll and into the civilian sector faster.
Sexual Harrassment and similar problems. Let's face it, you have an eighteen year old girl, and a fifty year old man. The man has some control over the girls paycheck, and over whether she is digging ditches or working in an office when civil employment opportunities come along. The temptation to use that in an abusive way exists. In a government program employing probably millions, some people are going to give in to temptation. In order to avoid this, I would recommend organizing the National Employment Corp, NEC, along the lines of the WW II army. I.E. a MEC or Mens Employment Corp, and a WEC, or women's employment corp. Women would be in charge of women, and men in charge of men. No opportunity for sexual harrassment.
There are other advantages. Men and women have different internal plumbing. Men do not know much about women's complaints and are more likely to make a wrong decision when a woman complains about a pain here or there than another woman is. More, many women in this program would be young mothers. This calls for a solution to child care problems while they are working. The WEC centers could include a child care area, and a duty roster, where the mothers take turns caring for all the children while other mothers handle labor requests from the local economy. Regulations could state that at all times there will be no more than 10 children per woman caring for them. WEC centers could provide training in child care, prenatal care, etc., as part of their work programs.
It's less expensive to provide a single sex facility than a multisex facility. Washrooms, have to be provided in the same proportion for both sexes, etc. It is just easier to make it work with a MEC and a WEC than with another system.
What about sexual discrimination? Well, there probably would be some. Civilian employers looking for ditch diggers would be more likely to go to the MEC, and people looking for part time office help would probably go to the WEC. Men could feel seriously discriminated against. However, the NEC, with its MEC and WEC branches would not be intended as a career choice. Hopefully the average time spent there by NEC 'privates' would be less than a year between jobs. Sexual discrimination is not really a factor under those circumstances.
Who is eligible for employment by the NEC? Everybody. Get rid of that huge bureacracy that does nothing but determine eligibility for the government handouts called welfare. All those highly paid civil servants probably cost the government more than they save anyway. Besides, there is no automatic check in the mail with NEC. Pay is tied to work, hour for hour. You show up, punch in the time clock, and get paid at the end of the week for the hours you actually put in. No freeloaders. If you can show up between the hours of say 8 to 4 that the NEC provides work, you clearly don't have a job during those hours, so you are eligible. What about people who work nights? Personally, if someone is willing to work a second job for minimum wage minus 25 cents an hour, they probably need the money, and are willing enough to work hard that they will be able to find a second job fairly rapidly anyway. Why worry about it. NEC doesn't pay very much, you don't know what you will be doing from day to day. One day it might be cleaning out a septic tank, the next it might be digging ditches, and the next it might be shoveling coal. When you are not doing that in the civil sector, some sergeant is making your life miserable by making you do pushups, or drill and ceremony, or clean and paint the office, etc. If you really need the money, you will be glad to have it, if you don't, you can find something better to do with your time.
Startup costs. Offer tax breaks for contributions of money and equipment and cleaning supplies to local businesses. Use the NEC 'privates' to do the work of making the offices and facilities up to standard. Get someone like General Colin Powell to honcho the national program, and start the NEC facilities as volunteers for the cadre show up throughout the country. It may not be possible to completely fill the needed cadre posts with volunteers. Then again it might. You probably won't be able to do it all with volunteers and contributions. Though I wish you could. All I would like to see the federal government offer is a guaranteed hourly paycheck of minimum wage -25 cents an hour to people who need the work and actually show up and do it and to people who are willing to help administer and run the system, and tax breaks for contributions. Local communities would have a huge responsibility in making it work in their areas. Replace welfare and unemployment compensation with this system.
The first Commanding General of the NEC would have a huge job. He would have to promulgate regulations and an organizational structure that would keep cadres to a minimum size, ensure good order and discipline, minimize abuses, provide easy interface with civil and local government labor needs, protect NEC 'privates' from abuse, etc. A tough job that would take a big man to do. The structure would need to start at the top, with organization, regulations, etc being created by the staff, and then implemented unit by unit throughout the country.
What's in it for the economy? Well, let's see. We are cutting back paychecks throughout the country. Military people are being laid off. Welfare is going to get cut or destroyed altogether, etc. What this means is that large amounts of money that was in the hands of consumers are going to dissappear. This means a loss of consumer purchases and a slowing down of the economy. Possibly a major crash. Going cold turkey on government spending may cause a major crash. Replacing welfare spending with a program that is designed to push people out of the culture of poverty and into the civil work force will work better. More, we have the productive capacity to employ everyone in society. It should be possible to set a bottom limit to living conditions in this country. Welfare has proven that this cannot be done by giving money away. In order to ensure a strong consumer base for our economy we should be willing to try to do it with a guaranteed work program. Altogether, it sounds like a plan that is just to good to come true. But I thought I'd shoot my mouth off anyway.
|
Home |
|
|---|
