Franklin D. Roosevelt Quote

"Are we going to take the hands of the federal government completely off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old principle that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything he wants, raise anything, any old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants?"

by:	Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd US President
Source:	May 31, 1935 press conference, responding to a Supreme Court decision that defined the commerce clause narrowly enough to interfere with his regulation of farm products
Rating:
Categories:	Commerce, Communist, Constitution, Fascist, Feudalism, Free Market, Free Trade, Government, Self-Determination, Self-Reliance, Trade, Agriculture
	Tweet

Indicitave of Roosevelt's statist attitude of control.  -- J Carlton, Calgary      4
An obvious facetious off the cuff press conference remark but which underlies his idea of national priorities. Such priorities have been necessary throughtout history as Joseph taught us in Egypt.  -- Waffler, Smith      1 6
Or as Josef taught us in the USSR? Waffler?  -- J Carlton, Calgary      5
this is one time that shows that BIG GOVERNMENT was what the dems. wanted then and now. good bye to the Constituation and all it stood and stands for.  -- harold lasky, sacramento,ca.      4
FDR and the New Deal. The biggest theft of personal liberty in US history and the foundation for the massive national debt upon which we are now burdened.  -- T Lappas, Silver Spring, Md      6
FDR orchestrated one of the greatest theft jobs in history when he outlawed gold and conned Americans into trading in their gold at the banks for paper. And to think that we arrest people for bank robbery when government does far worse daily. His policies to end the depression actually extended it until he was bailed out on December 7th,1941. Nothing like a good war to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.  -- jim k, Austin,Tx      5
FDR and Josef were reading from the same playbook.  -- Ron, Denver      4
Real clear who FDR and the rest of the statist theocracy are. Within the representative republic complimented by the Constitution, there were no national crops and, the farmer was lord over his own individual farm. Waffler, you're an idiot. Egypt was a theocratic monarchy that needed to plan for its future success and continued enslavement of the masses. Each individual in the representative republic was/is Pharaoh with his servants, being hired freemen to know the market sufficiently that they could give suggestions so that the masters could make an informed personal choice without foreign force.  -- Mike, Norwalk      2
In answer to FDR's question, "YES! Hands off!" 'National crops?' There are no national crops -- there is private property and private enterprise. Yes, the farmer IS the lord of his own farm, can do anything he wants, raise anything, any old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants -- it is his farm!! Yes, it is an old principle, and a foundational principle. With this abrogation of power by the Executive, Americans lost their rights to their own land -- the very right that defines an American compared to any other country in the world -- you can't own land in England, it all belongs to the Crown in perpetuity. Americans could hold land in allodium via their land patents and it could NEVER be taxed by state or federal government -- otherwise you don't really own it, do you? This dangerous precedent was just the beginning of the fascist movement in America thanks to FDR.  -- E Archer, NYC      7
All comments good grist for the mill of the mind: thanks! My own comment is to wonder if the "hands of the federal government" per FDR was not LESS controlling than the present system of crop / dairy subsidies and other price supports by the government on the one hand, and the inordinate influence of corporate lobbyists, e.g. Big Sugar or ADM or Monsanto or ethanol producers on the other. The "old principle" to which FDR refers certainly does NOT exist in any farming reality, nor to any significant extent does the "family farm," except in popular ill-informed romanticized mythology in the USA today. Even the Amish farmer submits to communal regulation / cooperation. I look forward to reading respectfully any respectful replies comments to mine!  -- Joe, central IL, USA      2
How many farmers are there in the federal government, and why do they think they know how to grow crops? Why do the federales think they know what kind of food we need to eat and how much? I really get tired of a fat ass like Michele O telling me to eat my veggies while Barack is smoking cigs and chowing down on Kobe beef and ice cream. Arrogance and nothing but...or is that butt.  -- Ken, Allyn, WA      5
What god-fearing nation needs to regulate farms? The infrequent loss-of-topsoil dust bowl, depression and famine are good for building national character. Right? Same thing with fresh water. Let Pepsico et-al sequester ALL rights to it. The 'free market' is the new Almighty...at least according to nitwits who've failed to see that the fruits from their personal labor now BELONGS to the banksters. Commie control or bankster/corporate control? What the hell is the difference? They both equate to TYRANNY and are DEADLY. Falling for the ceaseless media mantra, 'socialism BAD, capitalism GOOD' has turned Americans, even thinking ones usually represented here, into mindless automatons spouting slogans. Our destruction is assured -- because of our trust in selfish, compromised brigands instead of independent, critical thought. This website is ostensibly about freedom? Baloney! It's just another front for the free marketeers to propagate poisonous horseapples -- and for overloud drones to regurgitate TV-inculcated crap.  -- John L. Mann, Kalamazoo, MI      2 1
John, perhaps you didn't realize that in America land cannot be owned by corporations, government or trusts? At least that is how it was intended -- no 'dead hand' (mortmain) could hold property in perpetuity. This lesson was learned when churches and other charitable corporations acquired land in Europe, eventually owning nearly half of all land. In America, only living-breathing humans can 'own' land via their land patent. 'Title' to land is not ownership -- titles are granted by the owner but can also be taken away. It is because our nation has not held sacred the foundational principles of this free republic that corporatism rules. There is no 'free market' if there are those that can print up their own money or 'borrow' money that their friends have printed up -- it is only a matter of time before they own/control everything and the currency crashes on everyone else. That is not capitalism, that is central banking with a fiat currency which is a plank of Communism because it eventually seizes the labors and property of the people forever. 'Capitalism' is a word communists and bankers use to justify their version of oppression.  -- E Archer, NYC      3
Mr. Archer: Thanks for your considered response. I'm well aware of the differences between the Founders' intent and what we deal with today. I'm also well aware of the vast differences, in far too many arenas, where established 'law' directly contravenes the clear, unambiguous writing of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. Think Patriot Act. Think Military Commissions Act. Despite the Founders' intent to deny corporations and trusts the right to own land, this is ANYTHING but what we have today. Stone reactionaries on the Supreme Court through the decades have granted corporations the same rights as individuals, always under the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment -- literally granting corporations the legal status of "person." This happened first in 1886, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This was strengthened by various cases until the Supremes heard Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. Their decision gave MONEY, political donations that is, the designation of "Free Speech." This was further ensconced just recently when the Court struck down limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns in a VERY controversial, still hotly debated decision. Constitutional rule? Freedom? Justice? Here in the US? Only in the minds of idiots with their heads stuck firmly in TV's tailpipe. Too bad that means fully 99% of all Americans -- including a large preponderance of those opinionators found here. Bildo-Riley Beck rules and independent thought remains illusory. So does freedom, despite all the commercials and 'patriotic' trappings.  -- Mann, Kalamazoo      1 1
Mr. Mann, I suppose I couldn't tell what your argument was with the sarcasm -- were you advocating federal regulation of farming or not? I also took exception with your assertion that this site and its bloggers merely regurgitate the pablum from the TV. As one who has been commenting on this site for a number of years, I find that the most parroting of the party line has been from die-hard Democrats or Republicans unwilling to recognize the traitorous deeds of their own party. However, there are a great many on this blog who know all too well the points you have made above -- you are not alone. Perhaps your prejudice will not survive the experience. ;-) I hope you'll comment more often.  -- E Archer, NYC      2
Mr. Archer: I assume by 'sarcasm' you mean my allusion to 'TV's' tailpipe. Be aware there was no irony/sarcasm intended, merely a recounting of straight observations I endure daily. Granted, a fair portion of the (mostly meaningless) 1% is sometimes represented here -- though not nearly often enough, methinks. Frankly I consider gops and dems to be little but TV-painted 'oppositional' aspects of the one True Party in this nation: the corporate handout specialist, WAR PARTY. I've noted in these pages before that tyranny doesn't give a hoot as to which end of the political spectrum it emanates from. What this country, world really, needs is BALANCE. This, in my estimation, is the true holy grail -- and bloody hard to achieve because of all the personal and 'tribal' selfishness extant: on the latter read nationalism/patriotism. On a personal note, the only prejudice I'm aware of harboring is arrayed against willful ignorance and practiced stupidity. That much the world has in abundance. And it's accomplished without regard to race, nationality or religious belief, truly a 'pluralistic' endeavor.  -- Mann, Kalamazoo      1
FDR, the worst president in history. An unending attack on freedom and the constitution summed up in this very disturbing quote.  -- J. Allen, Arlington, Va      3
I don't like the quote in general. It reads like it was plucked out of a rant. We live in a unique point in time where decades after the Green Revolution we face jubilee of natural resource issues associated with intensive, industrial agriculture. That corporations like Monsanto exist at all to me is outrageous. I would not have expected to find the 'Agriculture' category consisting of 50% this quote. It sucks in a variety of ways.  -- Anon
History has been kind to FDR because he was President when the Nazi's were defeated. His economic policies were an out-right attack on individual and economic freedom and prosperity in favor of greater government power.  -- Tony, Silver Spring, Md      2
One of the most complicated assertions I have read. The subsistence farmer is free to grow only that which his animals and family can eat plus those in his immediate community which depend upon his crops and milk from his cows, etc. Across history, individual husbandry has been marginal at best. Not all soils nor all climates support all crops. Anything beyond subsistence is business and any opportunities which a business can afford are based upon the conditions under which those opportunities present themselves. The definition of a market implies community. All inter-communal markets require regulation. (?) The definition of a community changes with its boundaries then the capacity to defend those boundaries. Hence, mutual defense, hence taxes, hence government. (Supported, rationalized, by religion or some convoluted mix thereof.) I am presuming those who read these quotes have a general grasp of the historical aspects social "growth" has represented;; wherein interpretations of "principles" have lead to history's particulars. The point of this response is vague as the context out of which the quote was taken; for which apologies are in order. Wherefore, nationalism ? Under what guise ?  -- John Shuttleworth, New York City
The old socialist who snubbed Churchill 's hospitality at Yalta so he could bunk with "Uncle Joe" speaks from his (pinko) heart. At a time when many states and cities are being strangled financially by public sector union contracts and pensions, we would do well to remember that Roosevelt, a committed statist before it was fashionable, said that public sector unions were not sustainable and could not exist....there could never be public sector unions....too bad that one pearl of wisdom from him has been expunged... Someone needs to find THAT quote.  -- Hank Rearden, Burr Ridge Illinois      1
Ron Denver - FDR, STALIN and pathetic Waffler all read and practice from the same despotic dictatorial plundering Play Book.  -- Mary - MI      1
Collectivism uber alles.  -- Patrick Henry, Red Hill      1
-- Patrick Henry, Red Hill
he was just doin what he was told  -- Robin Hood, Nottingham      1

Tweet  Rate this quote! How many stars? 0 1 2 3 4 5	What do YOU think?
Your name:	Your town:     CLICK JUST ONCE!

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: