I'm overjoyed that in the internet age somebody else here would have any idea whatsoever what the term "Merriam-Webster" even refers to!

i'd love a new car too, but you're intentionally conflating the economic definition of "want" from an entirely different lay definition:

Want (2 of 2 - noun):
1
a: DEFICIENCY, LACK
suffers from a want of good sense
b: grave and extreme poverty that deprives one of the necessities of life
~merriam-webster

being probably the only one of us alive in FDR's era, you know full well that 1b is the definition he meant.

JL

Now I know that, as you suggest, one might not agree that police are a necessary part of any government, or courts of law and a military establishment. One also might not agree that welfare programs, retirement insurance, public housing, and nationalized medicine are a necessary part of government. One might even not agree that nationalized industry and capital markets are a necessary part of government.
But where the line is to be drawn is hardly obvious. FDR drew it at one point, his Republican opponents at another, the democratic socialists of Europe at another, and totalitarian systems like Stalinism and fascism at another.

So, "who gets to decide?" you ask. It seems to me the people get to decide via a legal, fair, and open democratic process. Could that process get corrupted or hijacked by minority or privileged special interests? Again to me, it seems like it could. Politics is politics, and so there is no one answer to the questions you raise concerning FDR's famous "Four Freedoms", and the more general one about what, exactly, "freedom" means in our political culture.

I haven't completely lost faith in the 'promise of America' and many of your posts here are one important reason why.

anyhow, WE THE PEOPLE (that's who) established the constitution to form a more perfect union (better government), establish justice (i.e. courts), ensure domestic tranquility (cops, social services), provide for the common defense (armed forces), promote the general welfare (that's why they call it that), and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (protect us from losing the freedoms we've gained, regardless whether it's OF something or FROM something).

i know it's a logical fallacy to appeal to authority, but that's literally what the constitution said our country is for.

Re. FDR's "Freedoms"

I understand freedoms of 'action' (speech, practice of religion, etc.), but the concept of freedoms 'FROM' externalities (want, fear, and similar unpleasantries) seems to imply that somebody else be burdened with the responsibility for your happiness, or at least for the prevention of any unhappiness for you.

What could possibly justify the imposition of those burdens on others, and who gets to decide who those 'others' are?

Edwards — who is in his final six months of office, unable to seek reelection this year due to consecutive term limits — has repeatedly described the bills as wrong, divisive and targeting a vulnerable group of people.'
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lousiana-lgbtq-bills-veto-gender-affirming-care_n_64a07147e4b028e64731593d

Two other Democratic governors deserve at least an honorable mention for MIDOW.

It's a reminder of the Four Freedoms advocated by one of our greatest Presidents:
' In an address .. [FDR] proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear'

Ah, that's an odd take. Every other piece of political analysis I've read on this latest House GOP clownery says that M.T.G. was expelled because she had become too closely aligned with Speaker McCarthy and the dreaded RINO mainstream House membership. In other words, the "extreme crazy" Freedom Caucus believes she is insufficiently batcrap-crazy to be part of their group anymore.

Is there any way to find out which is the correct interpretation of this action of "a bunch of useless loonies"?

Both Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster bombs in this war. Now, the use of these weapons by both sides is set to increase.

Why is the US sending them? Because Ukraine and its many suppliers, including the many US depots, are all running very low on conventional weapons. What does THAT mean?