← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 14149 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2004-06-12
2004-06-12 13:50 | User Profile
Friends:
This is perhaps the seminal document on Catholic social doctrine. It clearly sets forth the principles of human solidarity, the central role of marriage and family in society, the importance of the inviolability of private property and the dangers of Socialism, the proper role of the State in relation to society, and the centrality of human labor to economic activity.
I urge you all to read it and discuss it with me here.
Walter
Rerum Novarum On the Condition of the Working Classes Pope Leo XIII, 1891 Rerum Novarum Quadragesimo Anno Mater et Magistra Pacem in Terris Gaudium et Spes, Part 1 Gaudium et Spes, Part 2 Populorum Progressio Octogesima Adveniens Justice in the World On Human Work On Social Concern The Hundredth Year The Gospel of Life Economic Justice for All The Challenge of Peace
Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII issued on May 15, 1891.
To Our Venerable Brethren the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Ordinaries of Places Having Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See:
Once the passion for revolutionary change was aroused -- a passion long disturbing governments -- it was bound to follow sooner or later that eagerness for change would pass from the political sphere over into the related field of economics. In fact, new developments in industry, new techniques striking out on new paths, changed relations of employer and employee, abounding wealth among a very small number and destitution among the masses, increased self-reliance on the part of workers as well as a closer bond of union with one another, and, in addition to all this, a decline in morals have caused conflict to break forth.
The momentous nature of the questions involved in this conflict is evident from the fact that it keeps men's minds in anxious expectation, occupying the talents of the learned, the discussions of the wise and experienced, the assemblies of the people, the judgment of lawmakers, and the deliberations of rulers, so that now no topic more strongly holds men's interests.
Therefore, Venerable Brethren, with the cause of the Church and the common welfare before Us, We have thought it advisable, following Our custom on other occasions when We issued to you the Encyclicals "On Political Power", "On Human Liberty", "On the Christian Constitution of States", and others of similar nature, which seemed opportune to refute erroneous opinions, that We ought to do the same now, and for the same reasons, "On the Condition of Workers." We have on occasion touched more than once upon this subject. In this Encyclical, however, consciousness of Our Apostolic office admonishes Us to treat the entire question thoroughly, in order that the principles may stand out in clear light, and the conflict may thereby be brought to an end as required by truth and equity.
The problem is difficult to resolve and is not free from dangers. It is hard indeed to fix the boundaries of the rights and duties within which the rich and the proletariat -- those who furnish material things and those who furnish work -- ought to be restricted in relation to each other. The controversy is truly dangerous, for in various places it is being twisted by turbulent and crafty men to pervert judgment as to truth and seditiously to incite the masses.
In any event, We see clearly, and all are agreed that the poor must be speedily and fittingly cared for, since the great majority of them live undeservedly in miserable and wretched conditions.
After the old trade guilds had been destroyed in the last century, and no protection was substituted in their place, and when public institutions and legislation had cast off traditional religious teaching, it gradually came about that the present age handed over the workers, each alone and defenseless, to the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors. A devouring usury, although often condemned by the Church, but practiced nevertheless under another form by avaricious and grasping men, has increased the evil; and in addition the whole process of production as well as trade in every kind of goods has been brought almost entirely under the power of a few, so that a very few rich and exceedingly rich men have laid a yoke almost of slavery on the unnumbered masses of non-owning workers.
To cure this evil, the Socialists, exciting the envy of the poor toward the rich, contend that it is necessary to do away with private possession of goods and in its place to make the goods of individuals common to all, and that the men who preside over a municipality or who direct the entire State should act as administrators of these goods. They hold that, by such a transfer of private goods from private individuals to the community, they can cure the present evil through dividing wealth and benefits equally among the citizens.
But their program is so unsuited for terminating the conflict that it actually injures the workers themselves. Moreover, it is highly unjust, because it violates the rights of lawful owners, perverts the function of the State, and throws governments into utter confusion.
Clearly the essential reason why those who engage in any gainful occupation undertake labor, and at the same time the end to which workers immediately look, is to procure property for themselves and to retain it by individual right as theirs and as their very own. When the worker places his energy and his labor at the disposal of another, he does so for the purpose of getting the means necessary for livelihood. He seeks in return for the work done, accordingly, a true and full right not only to demand his wage but to dispose of it as he sees fit. Therefore, if he saves something by restricting expenditures and invests his savings in a piece of land in order to keep the fruit of his thrift more safe, a holding of this kind is certainly nothing else than his wage under a different form; and on this account land which the worker thus buys is necessarily under his full control as much as the wage which he earned by his labor. But, as is obvious, it is clearly in this that the ownership of movable and immovable goods consists. Therefore, inasmuch as the Socialists seek to transfer the goods of private persons to the community at large, they make the lot of all wage earners worse, because in abolishing the freedom to dispose of wages they take away from them by this very act the hope and the opportunity of increasing their property and of securing advantages for themselves.
But, what is of more vital concern, they propose a remedy openly in conflict with justice, inasmuch as nature confers on man the right to possess things privately as his own.
In this respect also there is the widest difference between man and other living beings. For brute beasts are not self- ruling, but are ruled and governed by a two-fold innate instinct, which not only keeps their faculty of action alert and develops their powers properly but also impels and determines their individual movements. By one instinct they are induced to protect themselves and their lives; by the other, to preserve their species. In truth, they attain both ends readily by using what is before them and within immediate range; and they cannot, of course, go further because they are moved to action by the senses alone and by the separate things perceived by the senses.
Man's nature is quite different. In man there is likewise the entire and full perfection of animal nature, and consequently on this ground there is given to man, certainly no less than to every kind of living being, to enjoy the benefits of corporeal goods. Yet animal nature, however perfectly possessed, is far from embracing human nature, but rather is much lower than human nature, having been created to serve and obey it. What stands out and excels in us, what makes man man and distinguishes him generically from the brute, is the mind and reason. And owing to the fact that this animal alone has reason, it is necessary that man have goods not only to be used, which is common to all living things, but also to be possessed by stable and perpetual right; and this applies not merely to those goods which are consumed by use, but to those also which endure after being used.
This is even more clearly evident, if the essential nature of human beings is examined more closely. Since man by his reason understands innumerable things, linking and combining the future with the present, and since he is master of his own actions, therefore, under the eternal law, and under the power of God most wisely ruling all things, he rules himself by the foresight of his own counsel. Wherefore it is in his power to choose the things which he considers best adapted to benefit him not only in the present but also in the future. Whence it follows that dominion not only over the fruits of the earth, but also over the earth itself, ought to rest in man, since he sees that things necessary for the future are furnished him out of the produce of the earth. The needs of every man are subject, as it were, to constant recurrences, so that, satisfied today, they make new demands tomorrow. Therefore, nature necessarily gave man something stable and perpetually lasting on which he can count for continuous support. But nothing can give continuous support of this kind save the earth with its great abundance.
There is no reason to interpose provision by the State, for man is older than the State. Wherefore he had to possess by nature his own right to protect his life and body before any polity had been formed.
The fact that God gave the whole human race the earth to use and enjoy cannot indeed in any manner serve as an objection against private possessions. For God is said to have given the earth to mankind in common, not because He intended indiscriminate ownership of it by all, but because He assigned no part to anyone in ownership, leaving the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and the institutions of peoples. Yet, however the earth may be apportioned among private owners, it does not cease to serve the common interest of all, inasmuch as no living being is sustained except by what the fields bring forth. Those who lack resources supply labor, so that it can be truly affirmed that the entire scheme of securing a livelihood consists in the labor which a person expends either on his own land or in some working occupation, the compensation for which is drawn ultimately from no other source than from the varied products of the earth and is exchanged for them.
For this reason it also follows that private possessions are clearly in accord with nature. The earth indeed produces in great abundance the things to preserve and, especially, to perfect life, but of itself it could not produce them without human cultivation and care. Moreover, since man expends his mental energy and his bodily strength in procuring the goods of nature, by this very act he appropriates that part of physical nature to himself which he has cultivated. On it he leaves impressed, as it were, a kind of image of his person, so that it must be altogether just that he should possess that part as his very own and that no one in any way should be permitted to violate his right.
The force of these arguments is so evident that it seems amazing that certain revivers of obsolete theories dissent from them. These men grant the individual the use of the soil and the varied fruits of the farm, but absolutely deny him the right to hold as owner either the ground on which he has built or the farm he has cultivated. When they deny this right they fail to see that a man will be defrauded of the things his labor has produced. The land, surely, that has been worked by the hand and the art of the tiller greatly changes in aspect. The wilderness is made fruitful; the barren field, fertile. But those things through which the soil has been improved so inhere in the soil and are so thoroughly intermingled with it, that they are for the most part quite inseparable from it. And, after all, would justice permit anyone to own and enjoy that upon which another has toiled? As effects follow the cause producing them, so it is just that the fruit of labor belongs precisely to those who have performed the labor.
Rightly therefore, the human race as a whole, moved in no wise by the dissenting opinions of a few, and observing nature carefully, has found in the law of nature itself the basis of the distribution of goods, and, by the practice of all ages, has consecrated private possession as something best adapted to man's nature and to peaceful and tranquil living together. Now civil laws, which, when just, derive their power from the natural law itself, confirm and, even by the use of force, protect this right of which we speak. -- And this same right has been sanctioned by the authority of the divine law, which forbids us most strictly even to desire what belongs to another. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his." [1]
Rights of this kind which reside in individuals are seen to have much greater validity when viewed as fitted into and connected with the obligations of human beings in family life.
There is no question that in choosing a state of life it is within the power and discretion of individuals to prefer the one or the other state, either to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ regarding virginity or to bind oneself in marriage. No law of man can abolish the natural and primeval right of marriage, or in any way set aside the chief purpose of matrimony established in the beginning by the authority of God: "Increase and multiply." [2] Behold, therefore, the family, or rather the society of the household, a very small society indeed, but a true one, and older than any polity! For that reason it must have certain rights and duties of its own independent of the State. Thus, right of ownership, which we have shown to be bestowed on individual persons by nature, must be assigned to man in his capacity as head of a family. Nay rather, this right is all the stronger, since the human person in family life embraces much more.
It is a most sacred law of nature that the father of a family see that his offspring are provided with all the necessities of life, and nature even prompts him to desire to provide and to furnish his children, who, in fact reflect and in a sense continue his person, with the means of decently protecting themselves against harsh fortune in the uncertainties of life. He can do this surely in no other way than by owning fruitful goods to transmit by inheritance to his children. As already noted, the family like the State is by the same token a society in the strictest sense of the term, and is governed by its own proper authority, namely, by that of the father. Wherefore, assuming, of course, that those limits be observed which are fixed by its immediate purpose, the family assuredly possesses rights, at least equal with those of civil society, in respect to choosing and employing the things necessary for its protection and its just liberty. We say "at least equal" because, inasmuch as domestic living together is prior both in thought and in fact to uniting into a polity, it follows that its rights and duties are also prior and more in conformity with nature. But if citizens, if families, after becoming participants in common life and society, were to experience injury in a commonwealth instead of help, impairment of their rights instead of protection, society would be something to be repudiated rather than to be sought for.
To desire, therefore, that the civil power should enter arbitrarily into the privacy of homes is a great and pernicious error. If a family perchance is in such extreme difficulty and is so completely without plans that it is entirely unable to help itself, it is right that the distress by remedied by public aid, for each individual family is a part of the community. Similarly, if anywhere there is a grave violation of mutual rights within the family walls, public authority shall restore to each his right; for this is not usurping the rights of citizens, but protecting and confirming them with just and due care. Those in charge of public affairs, however, must stop here; nature does not permit them to go beyond these limits. Paternal authority is such that it can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State, because it has the same origin in common with that of man's own life. "Children are a part of their father," and, as it were, a kind of extension of the father's person; and, strictly speaking, not through themselves, but through the medium of the family society in which they are begotten, they enter into the participate in civil society. And for the very reason that children "are by nature part of their father...before they have the use of free will, they are kept under the care of their parents." [3] Inasmuch as the Socialists, therefore, disregard care by parents and in its place introduce care by the State, they act against natural justice and dissolve the structure of the home.
And apart from the injustice involved, it is only too evident what turmoil and disorder would obtain among all classes; and what a harsh and odious enslavement of citizens would result! The door would be open to mutual envy, detraction, and dissension. If incentives to ingenuity and skill in individual persons were to be abolished, the very fountains of wealth would necessarily dry up; and the equality conjured up by the Socialist imagination would, in reality, be nothing but uniform wretchedness and meanness for one and all, without distinction.
From all these conversations, it is perceived that the fundamental principle of Socialism which would make all possessions public property is to be utterly rejected because it injures the very ones whom it seeks to help, contravenes the natural rights of individual persons, and throws the functions of the State and public peace into confusion. Let it be regarded, therefore, as established that in seeking help for the masses this principle before all is to be considered as basic, namely, that private ownership must be preserved inviolate. With this understood, we shall explain whence the desired remedy is to be sought.
We approach the subject with confidence and surely by Our right, for the question under consideration is certainly one for which no satisfactory solution will be found unless religion and the Church have been called upon to aid. Moreover, since the safeguarding of religion and of all things within the jurisdiction of the Church is primarily Our stewardship, silence on Our part might be regarded as failure in Our duty.
Assuredly, a question as formidable as this requires the attention and effort of others as well, namely, the heads of the State, employers and the rich, and finally, those in whose behalf efforts are being made, the workers themselves. Yet without hesitation We affirm that if the Church is disregarded, human striving will be in vain. Manifestly, it is the Church which draws from the Gospel the teachings through which the struggle can be composed entirely, or, after its bitterness is removed, can certainly become more tempered. It is the Church, again, that strives not only to instruct the mind but to regulate by her precepts the life and morals of individuals, that ameliorates the condition of the workers through her numerous and beneficent institutions, and that wishes and aims to have the thought and energy of all classes of society united to this end, that the interests of the workers be protected as fully as possible. And to accomplish this purpose she holds that the laws and the authority of the State, within reasonable limits, ought to be employed.
Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that a condition of human existence must be borne with, namely, that in civil society the lowest cannot be made equal to the highest. Socialists, of course, agitate the contrary, but all struggling against nature is vain. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community; for to carry on its affairs community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services, and to perform these diverse services men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings.
So far as bodily labor is concerned, man even before the Fall was not destined to be wholly idle; but certainly what his will at that time would have freely embraced to his soul's delight, necessity afterwards forced him to accept, with a feeling of irksomeness, for the expiation of his guilt. "Cursed be the earth in thy work: in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life." [4] Likewise there is to be no end on earth of other hardships, for the evil consequences of sin are hard, trying, and bitter to bear, and will necessarily accompany men even to the end of life. Therefore, to suffer and endure is human, and although men may strive in all possible ways, they will never be able by any power or art wholly to banish such tribulations from human life. If any claim they can do this, if they promise the poor in their misery a life free from all sorrow and vexation and filled with repose and perpetual pleasures, they actually impose upon these people and perpetuate a fraud which will ultimately lead to evils greater than the present. The best course is to view human affairs as they are and, as We have stated, at the same time to seek appropriate relief for these troubles elsewhere.
It is a capital evil with respect to the question We are discussing to take for granted that the one class of society is of itself hostile to the other, as if nature had set rich and poor against each other to fight fiercely in implacable war. This is so abhorrent to reason and truth that the exact opposite is true; for just as in the human body the different members harmonize with one another, whence arises that disposition of parts and proportion in the human figure rightly called symmetry, so likewise nature has commanded in the case of the State that the two classes mentioned should agree harmoniously and should properly form equally balanced counterparts to each other. Each needs the other completely: neither capital can do without labor, nor labor without capital. Concord begets beauty and order in things. Conversely, from perpetual strife there must arise disorder accompanied by bestial cruelty. But for putting an end to conflict and for cutting away its very roots, there is wondrous and multiple power in Christian institutions.
And first and foremost, the entire body of religious teaching and practice, of which the Church is interpreter and guardian, can pre-eminently bring together and unite the rich and the poor by recalling the two classes of society to their mutual duties, and in particular to those duties which derive from justice.
Among these duties the following concern the poor and the workers: To perform entirely and conscientiously whatever work has been voluntarily and equitably agreed upon; not in any way to injure the property or to harm the person of employers; in protecting their own interests, to refrain from violence and never to engage in rioting; not to associate with vicious men who craftily hold out exaggerated hopes and make huge promises, a course usually ending in vain regrets and in the destruction of wealth.
The following duties, on the other hand, concern rich men and employers: Workers are not to be treated as slaves; justice demands that the dignity of human personality be respected in them, ennobled as it has been through what we call the Christian character. If we hearken to natural reason and to Christian philosophy, gainful occupations are not a mark of shame to man, but rather of respect, as they provide him with an honorable means of supporting life. It is shameful and inhuman, however, to use men as things for gain and to put no more value on them than what they are worth in muscle and energy. Likewise it is enjoined that the religious interests and the spiritual well- being of the workers receive proper consideration. Wherefore, it is the duty of employers to see that the worker is free for adequate periods to attend to his religious obligations; not to expose anyone to corrupting influences or the enticements of sin, and in no way to alienate him from care for his family and the practice of thrift. Likewise, more work is not to be imposed than strength can endure, nor that kind of work which is unsuited to a worker's age or sex.
Among the most important duties of employers the principal one is to give every worker what is justly due him. Assuredly, to establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account. But, in general, the rich and employers must remember that no laws, either human or divine, permit them for their own profit to oppress the needy and the wretched or to seek gain from another's want. To defraud anyone of the wage due him is a great crime that calls down avenging wrath from Heaven, "Behold, the wages of the laborers...which have been kept back by you unjustly, cry out: and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts." [5] Finally, the rich must religiously avoid harming in any way the savings of the workers either by coercion, or by fraud, or by the arts of usury; and the more for this reason, that the workers are not sufficiently protected against injustices and violence, and their property, being so meager, ought to be regarded as all the more sacred. Could not the observance alone of the foregoing laws remove the bitterness and the causes of the conflict?
But the Church, with Jesus Christ as her teacher and leader, seeks greater things than this; namely, by commanding something more perfect, she aims at joining the two social classes to each other in closest neighborliness and friendship. We cannot understand and evaluate mortal things rightly unless the mind reflects upon the other life, the life which is immortal. If this other life indeed were taken away, the form and true notion of the right would immediately perish; nay, this entire world would become an enigma insoluble to man. Therefore, what we learn from nature itself as our teacher is also a Christian dogma and on it the whole system and structure of religion rests, as it were, on its main foundation; namely, that, when we have left this life, only then shall we truly begin to live. God has not created man for the fragile and transitory things of this world, but for Heaven and eternity, and He has ordained this earth as a place of exile, not as our permanent home. Whether you abound in, or whether you lack, riches, and all the other things which are called good, is of no importance in relation to eternal happiness. But how you use them, that is truly of utmost importance. Jesus Christ by His "plentiful redemption" has by no means taken away the various tribulations with which mortal life is interwoven, but has so clearly transformed them into incentives in virtue and sources of merit that no mortal can attain eternal reward unless he follows the bloodstained footsteps of Jesus Christ. "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him." [6] By the labors and suffering which He voluntarily accepted, He has wondrously lightened the burden of suffering and labor, and not only by His example but also by His grace and by holding before us the hope of eternal reward. He has made endurance of sorrows easier: "for our present light affliction, which is for the moment, prepares us for an eternal weight of glory that is beyond all measure." [7]
Therefore, the well-to-do are admonished that wealth does not give surcease of sorrow, and that wealth is of no avail unto the happiness of eternal life but is rather a hindrance; [8] that the threats [9] pronounced by Jesus Christ, so unusual coming from Him, ought to cause the rich to fear; and that on one day the strictest account for the use of wealth must be rendered to God as Judge.
On the use of wealth we have the excellent and extremely weighty teaching, which, although found in a rudimentary stage in pagan philosophy, the Church has handed down in a completely developed form and causes to be observed not only in theory but in everyday life. The foundation of this teaching rests on this, that the just ownership of money is distinct from the just use of money.
To own goods privately, as We saw above, is a right natural to man, and to exercise this right, especially in life in society, is not only lawful, but clearly necessary. "It is lawful for man to own his own things. It is even necessary for human life." [10] But if the question be asked: How ought man to use his possessions? the Church replies without hesitation: "As to this point, man ought not regard external goods as his own, but as common so that, in fact, a person should readily share them when he sees others in need. Wherefore the Apostle says: 'Charge the rich of this world...to give readily, to share with others'." [11] No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, or even to give to others what he himself needs to maintain his station in life becomingly and decently: "No one is obliged to live unbecomingly." [12] But when the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains. "Give that which remains as alms." [13] These are duties not of justice, except in cases of extreme need, but of Christian charity, which obviously cannot be enforced by legal action. But the laws and judgments of men yield precedence to the law and judgment of Christ the Lord, Who in many ways urges the practice of alms- giving: "It is more blessed to give than to receive," [14] and Who will judge a kindness done or denied to the poor as done or denied to Himself, "As long as you did it for one of these, the least of My brethren, you did it for Me." [15] The substance of all this is the following: whoever has received from the bounty of God a greater share of goods, whether corporeal and external, or of the soul, has received them for this purpose, namely, that he employ them for his own perfection and, likewise, as a servant of Divine Providence, for the benefit of others. "Therefore, he that hath talent, let him constantly see to it that he be not silent; he that hath an abundance of goods, let him be on the watch that he grow not slothful in the generosity of mercy; he that hath a trade whereby he supports himself, let him be especially eager to share with his neighbor the use and benefit thereof." [16]
Those who lack fortune's goods are taught by the Church that, before God as judge, poverty is no disgrace, and that no one should be ashamed because he makes his living by toil. And Jesus Christ has confirmed this by fact and by deed, Who for the salvation of men, "being rich, became poor;" [17] and although He was the Son of God and God Himself, yet He willed to seem and to be thought the son of a carpenter; nay, He even did not disdain to spend a great part of his life at the work of a carpenter. "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary?" [18] Those who contemplate this Divine example will more easily understand these truths: True dignity and excellence in men resides in moral living, that is, in virtue; virtue is the common inheritance of man, attainable equally by the humblest and the mightiest, by the rich and the poor; and the reward of eternal happiness will follow upon virtue and merit alone, regardless of the person in whom they may be found. Nay, rather the favor of God Himself seems to incline more toward the unfortunate as a class; for Jesus Christ calls the poor [19] blessed, and He invites most lovingly all who are in labor or sorrow [20] to come to Him for solace, embracing with special love the lowly and those harassed by injustice. At the realization of these things the proud spirit of the rich is easily brought down, and the downcast heart of the afflicted is lifted up; the former are moved toward kindness, the latter toward reasonableness in their demands. Thus the distance between the classes which pride seeks is seduced, and it will easily be brought to pass that the two classes, with hands clasped in friendship, will be united in heart.
Yet, if they obey Christian teachings, not merely friendship but brotherly love also will bind them to each other. They will feel and understand that all men indeed have been created by God, their common Father; that all strive for the same object of good, which is God Himself, Who alone can communicate to both men and angels perfect and absolute happiness; that all equally have been redeemed by the grace of Jesus Christ and restored to the dignity of the sons of God, so that they are clearly united by the bonds of brotherhood not only with one another but also with Christ the Lord, "the first-born among many brethren," [21] and further, that the goods of nature and the gifts of divine grace belong in common and without distinction to all human kind, and that no one, unless he is unworthy, will be deprived of the inheritance of Heaven. "But if we are sons, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ." [22]
Such is the economy of duties and rights according to Christian philosophy. Would it not seem that all conflict would soon cease wherever this economy were to prevail in civil society?
Finally, the Church does not consider it enough to point out the way of finding the cure, but she administers the remedy herself. For she occupies herself fully in training and forming men according to discipline and doctrine; and through the agency of bishops and clergy, she causes the health-giving streams of this doctrine to be diffused as widely as possible. Furthermore, she strives to enter into men's minds and to bend their wills so that they may suffer themselves to be ruled and governed by the discipline of divine precepts. And in this field, which is of first and greatest importance because in it the whole substance and matter of benefits consists, the Church indeed has a power that is especially unique. For the instruments which she uses to move souls were given her for this very purpose by Jesus Christ, and they have an efficacy implanted in them by God. Such instruments alone can properly penetrate the inner recesses of the heart and lead man to obedience to duty, to govern the activities of his self-seeking mind, to love God and his neighbors with a special and sovereign love, and to overcome courageously all things that impede the path of virtue.
In this connection it is sufficient briefly to recall to mind examples from history. We shall mention events and facts that admit of no doubt, namely, that human society in its civil aspects was renewed fundamentally by Christian institutions; that, by virtue of this renewal, mankind was raised to a higher level, nay, was called back from death to life, and enriched with such a degree of perfection as has never existed before and was not destined to be greater in any succeeding age; and that, finally, the same Jesus Christ is the beginning and end of these benefits; for as all things have proceeded from Him, so they must be referred back to Him. When, with the acceptance of the light of the Gospel, the world had learned the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and the redemption of man, the life of Jesus Christ, God and man, spread through the nations and imbued them wholly with His doctrine, with His precepts, and with His laws. Wherefore, if human society is to be healed, only a return to Christian life and institutions will heal it. In the case of decaying societies it is most correctly prescribed that, if they wish to be regenerated, they must be recalled to their origins. For the perfection of all associations is this, namely, to work for and to attain the purpose for which they were formed, so that all social actions should be inspired by the same principle which brought the society itself into being. Wherefore, turning away from the original purpose is corruption, while going back to this discovery is recovery. And just as we affirm this as unquestionably true of the entire body of the commonwealth, in like manner we affirm it of that order of citizens who sustain life by labor and who constitute the vast majority of society.
But it must not be supposed that the Church so concentrates her energies on caring for souls as to overlook things which pertain to mortal and earthly life. As regards the non-owning workers specifically, she desires and strives that they rise from their most wretched state and enjoy better conditions. And to achieve this result she makes no small contribution by the very fact that she calls men to and trains them in virtue. For when Christian morals are completely observed, they yield of themselves a certain measure of prosperity to material existence, because they win the favor of God, the source and fountain of all goods; because they restrain the twin plagues of life -- excessive desire for wealth and thirst [23] for pleasure -- which too often make man wretched amidst the very abundance of riches; and because finally, Christian morals make men content with a moderate livelihood and make them supplement income by thrift, removing them far from the vices which swallow up both modest sums and huge fortunes, and dissipate splendid inheritances.
But, in addition, the Church provides directly for the well- being of the non-owning workers by instituting and promoting activities which she knows to be suitable to relieve their distress. Nay, even in the field of works of mercy, she has always so excelled that she is highly praised by her very enemies. The force of mutual charity among the first Christians was such that the wealthier ones very often divested themselves of their riches to aid others; wherefore, "Nor was there anyone among them in want." [24] To the deacons, an order founded expressly for this purpose, the Apostles assigned the duty of dispensing alms daily; and the Apostle Paul, although burdened with the care of all the churches, did not hesitate to spend himself on toilsome journeys in order to bring alms personally to the poorer Christians. Moneys of this kind, contributed voluntarily by the Christians in every assembly, Tertullian calls "piety's deposit fund," because they were expended to "support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of orphan boys and girls without means of support, of aged household servants, and of such, too, as had suffered shipwreck." [25]
Thence, gradually there came into existence that patrimony which the Church has guarded with religious care as the property of the poor. Nay, even disregarding the feeling of shame associated with begging, she provided aid for the wretched poor. For, as the common parent of rich and poor, with charity everywhere stimulated to the highest degree, she founded religious societies and numerous other useful bodies, so that, with the aid which these furnished, there was scarcely any form of human misery that went uncared for.
And yet many today go so far as to condemn the Church as the ancient pagans once did, for such outstanding charity, and would substitute in lieu thereof a system of benevolence established by the laws of the State. But no human devices can ever be found to supplant Christian charity, which gives itself entirely for the benefit of others. This virtue belongs to the Church alone, for, unless it is derived from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, it is in no wise a virtue; and whosoever departs from the Church wanders far from Christ.
But there can be no question that, to attain Our purpose, those helps also which are within the power of men are necessary. Absolutely all who are concerned with the matter must, according to their capacity, bend their efforts to this same end and work for it. And this activity has a certain likeness to Divine Providence governing the world; for generally we see effects flow from the concert of all the elements upon which as causes these effects depend.
But it is now in order to inquire what portion of the remedy should be expected from the State. By State here We understand not the form of government which this or that people has, but rather that form which right reason in accordance with nature requires and the teachings of Divine wisdom approve, matters that We have explained specifically in our Encyclical "On the Christian Constitution of States."
Therefore those governing the State ought primarily to devote themselves to the service of individual groups and of the whole commonwealth, and through the entire scheme of laws and institutions to cause both public and individual well-being to develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State. For this is the duty of wise statesmanship and the essential office of those in charge of the State. Now, States are made prosperous especially by wholesome morality, properly ordered family life, protection of religion and justice, moderate imposition and equitable distribution of public burdens, progressive development of industry and trade, thriving agriculture, and by all other things of this nature, which the more actively they are promoted, the better and happier the life of the citizens is destined to be. Therefore, by virtue of these things, it is within the competence of the rulers of the State that, as they benefit other groups, they also improve in particular the condition of the workers. Furthermore, they do this with full right and without laying themselves open to any charge of unwarranted interference. For the State is bound by the very law of its office to serve the common interest. And the richer the benefits which come from this general providence on the part of the State, the less necessary it will be to experiment with other measures for the well-being of workers.
This ought to be considered, as it touches the question more deeply, namely, that the State has one basic purpose for existence, which embraces in common the highest and the lowest of its members. Non-owning workers are unquestionably citizens by nature in virtue of the same right as the rich, that is, true and vital parts whence, through the medium of families, the body of the State is constituted; and it hardly need be added that they are by far the greatest number in every urban area. Since it would be quite absurd to look out for one portion of the citizens and to neglect another, it follows that public authority ought to exercise due care in safe-guarding the well-being and the interests of non-owning workers. Unless this is done, justice, which commands that everyone be given his own, will be violated. Wherefore St. Thomas says wisely: "Even as part and whole are in a certain way the same, so too that which pertains to the whole pertains in a certain way to the part also." [26] Consequently, among the numerous and weighty duties of rulers who would serve their people well, this is first and foremost, namely, that they protect equitably each and every class of citizens, maintaining inviolate that justice especially which is called distributive.
Although all citizens, without exception, are obliged to contribute something to the sum-total common goods, some share of which naturally goes back to each individual, yet all can by no means contribute the same amount and in equal degree. Whatever the vicissitudes that occur in the forms of government, there will always be those differences in the condition of citizens without which society could neither exist nor be conceived. It is altogether necessary that there be some who dedicate themselves to the service of the State, who make laws, who dispense justice, and finally, by whose counsel and authority civil and military affairs are administered. These men, as is clear, play the chief role in the Sate, and among every people are to be regarded as occupying first place, because they work for the common good most directly and pre-eminently. On the other hand, those engaged in some calling benefit the State, but not in the same way as the men just mentioned, nor by performing the same duties; yet they, too, in a high degree, although less directly, serve the common weal. Assuredly, since social good must be of such a character that men through its acquisition are made better, it must necessarily be founded on virtue.
Nevertheless, an abundance of corporeal and external goods is likewise a characteristic of a well-constituted State, "the use of which goods is necessary for the practice of virtue." [27] To produce these goods the labor of the workers, whether they expend their skill and strength on farms or in factories, is most efficacious and necessary. Nay, in this respect, their energy and effectiveness are so important that it is incontestable that the wealth of nations originates from no other source than from the labor of workers. Equity therefore commands that public authority show proper concern for the worker so that from what he contributes to the common good he may receive what will enable him, housed, clothed, and secure, to live his life without hardship. Whence, it follows that all those measures ought to be favored which seem in any way capable of benefiting the condition of workers. Such solicitude is so far from injuring anyone, that it is destined rather to benefit all, because it is of absolute interest to the State that those citizens should not be miserable in every respect from whom such necessary goods proceed.
It is not right, as We have said, for either the citizen or the family to be absorbed by the State; it is proper that the individual and the family should be permitted to retain their freedom of action, so far as this is possible without jeopardizing the common good and without injuring anyone. Nevertheless, those who govern must see to it that they protect the community, because nature has entrusted its safeguarding to the sovereign power in the State to such an extent that the protection of the public welfare is not only the supreme law, but is the entire cause and reason for sovereignty; and the constituent parts, because philosophy and Christian faith agree that the administration of the State has from nature as its purpose, not the benefit of those to whom it has been entrusted, but the benefit of those who have been entrusted to it. And since the power of governing comes from God and is a participation, as it were, in His supreme sovereignty, it ought to be administered according to the example of the Divine power, which looks with paternal care to the welfare of individual creatures as well as to that of all creation. If, therefore, any injury has been done to or threatens either the common good or the interests of individual groups, which injury cannot in any other way be repaired or prevented, it is necessary for public authority to intervene.
It is vitally important to public as well as to private welfare that there be peace and good order; likewise, that the whole regime of family life be directed according to the ordinances of God and the principles of nature, that religion be observed and cultivated, that sound morals flourish in private and public life, that justice be kept sacred and that no one be wronged with impunity by another, and that strong citizens grow up, capable of supporting, and, if necessary, of protecting the State. Wherefore, if at any time disorder should threaten because of strikes or concerted stoppages of work, if the natural bonds of family life should be relaxed among the poor, if religion among the workers should be outraged by failure to provide sufficient opportunity for performing religious duties, if in factories danger should assail the integrity of morals through the mixing of the sexes or other pernicious incitements to sin, or if the employer class should oppress the working class with unjust burdens or should degrade them with conditions inimical to human personality or to human dignity, if health should be injured by immoderate work and such as is not suited to sex or age -- in all these cases, the power and authority of the law, but of course within certain limits, manifestly ought to be employed. And these limits are determined by the same reason which demands the aid of the law, that is, the law ought not to undertake more, nor it go farther, than the remedy of evils or the removal of danger requires.
Rights indeed, by whomsoever possessed, must be religiously protected; and public authority, in warding off injuries and punishing wrongs, ought to see to it that individuals may have and hold what belongs to them. In protecting the rights of private individuals, however, special consideration must be given to the weak and the poor. For the nation, as it were, of the rich, is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself, relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wage workers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight.
But it will be well to touch here expressly on certain matters of special importance. The capital point is this, that private property ought to be safeguarded by the sovereign power of the State and through the bulwark of its laws. And especially, in view of such a great flaming up of passion at the present time, the masses ought to be kept within the bounds of their moral obligations. For while justice does not oppose our striving for better things, on the other hand, it does forbid anyone to take from another what is his and, in the name of a certain absurd equality, to seize forcibly the property of others; nor does the interest of the common good itself permit this. Certainly, the great majority of working people prefer to secure better conditions by honest toil, without doing wrong to anyone. Nevertheless, not a few individuals are found who, imbued with evil ideas and eager for revolution, use every means to stir up disorder and incite to violence. The authority of the State, therefore, should intervene and, by putting restraint upon such disturbers, protect the morals of workers from their corrupting arts and lawful owners from the danger of spoliation.
Labor which is too long and too hard and the belief that pay is inadequate not infrequently give workers cause to strike and become voluntarily idle. This evil, which is frequent and serious, ought to be remedied by public authority, because such interruption of work inflicts damage not only upon employers and upon the workers themselves, but also injures trade and commerce and the general interests of the State; and, since it is usually not far removed from violence and rioting, it very frequently jeopardizes public peace. In this matter it is more effective and salutary that the authority of the law anticipate and completely prevent the evil from breaking out by removing early the causes from which it would seem that conflict between employers and workers is bound to arise.
And in like manner, in the case of the worker, there are many things which the power of the State should protect; and, first of all, the goods of his soul. For however good and desirable mortal life be, yet it is not the ultimate goal for which we are born, but a road only and a means for perfecting, through knowledge of truth and love of good, the life of the soul. The soul bears the express image and likeness of God, and there resides in it that sovereignty through the medium of which man has been bidden to rule all created nature below him and to make all lands and all seas serve his interests. "Fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the earth." [28] In this respect all men are equal, and there is no difference between rich and poor, between masters and servants, between rulers and subjects: "For there is the same Lord of all." [29] No one may with impunity outrage the dignity of man, which God Himself treats with great reverence, nor impede his course to that level of perfection which accords with eternal life in heaven. Nay, more, in this connection a man cannot even by his own free choice allow himself to be treated in a way inconsistent with his nature, and suffer his soul to be enslaved; for there is no question here of rights belonging to man, but of duties owed to God, which are to be religiously observed.
Hence follows necessary cessation from toil and work on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. Let no one, however, understand this in the sense of greater indulgence of idle leisure, and much less in the sense of that kind of cessation from work, such as many desire, which encourages vice and promotes wasteful spending of money, but solely in the sense of a repose from labor made sacred by religion. Rest combined with religion calls man away from toil and the business of daily life to admonish him to ponder on heavenly goods and to pay his just and due homage to the Eternal Deity. This is especially the nature, and this the cause, of the rest to be taken on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and God has sanctioned the same in the Old Testament by a special law: "Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath Day," [30] and He Himself taught it by His own action; namely the mystical rest taken immediately after He had created man: "He hath rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." [31]
Now as concerns the protection of corporeal and physical goods, the oppressed workers, above all, ought to be liberated from the savagery of greedy men, who inordinately use human beings as things for gain. Assuredly, neither justice nor humanity can countenance the exaction of so much work that the spirit is dulled from excessive toil and that along with it the body sinks crushed from exhaustion. The working energy of a man, like his entire nature, is circumscribed by definite limits beyond which it cannot go. It is developed indeed by exercise and use, but only on condition that a man cease from work at regular intervals and rest. With respect to daily work, therefore, care ought to be taken not to extend it beyond the hours that human strength warrants. The length of rest intervals ought to be decided on the basis of the varying nature of the work, of the circumstances of time and place, and of the physical condition of the workers themselves. Since the labor of those who quarry stone from the earth, or who mine iron, copper, or other underground materials, is much more severe and harmful to health, the working period for such men ought to be correspondingly shortened. The seasons of the year also must be taken into account; for often a given kind of work is easy to endure in one season but cannot be endured at all in another, or not without the greatest difficulty.
Finally, it is not right to demand of a woman or a child what a strong adult man is capable of doing or would be willing to do. Nay, as regards children, special care ought to be taken that the factory does not get hold of them before age has sufficiently matured their physical, intellectual, and moral powers. For budding strength in childhood, like greening verdure in spring, is crushed by premature harsh treatment; and under such circumstances all education of the child must needs be foregone. Certain occupations, likewise, are less fitted for women, who are intended by nature for work of the home -- work indeed which especially protects modesty in women and accords by nature with the education of children and the well-being of the family. Let it be the rule everywhere that workers be given as much leisure as will compensate for the energy consumed by toil, for rest from work is necessary to restore strength consumed by use. In every obligation which is mutually contracted between employers and workers, this condition, either written or tacit, is always present, that both kinds of rest be provided for; nor would it be equitable to make an agreement otherwise, because no one has the right to demand of, or to make an agreement with anyone to neglect those duties which bind a man to God or to himself.
We shall now touch upon a matter of very great importance, and one which must be correctly understood in order to avoid falling into error on one side or the other. We are told that free consent fixes the amount of a wage; that therefore the employer, after paying the wage agreed to would seem to have discharged his obligation and not to owe anything more; that only then would injustice be done if either the employer should refuse to pay the whole amount of the wage, or the worker should refuse to perform all the work to which he had committed himself; and that in those cases, but in no others, is it proper for the public authority to safeguard the rights of each party.
An impartial judge would not assent readily or without reservation to this reasoning, because it is not complete in all respects; one factor to be considered, and one of the greatest importance, is missing. To work is to expend one's energy for the purpose of securing the things necessary for the various needs of life and especially for its preservation. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." [32] Accordingly, in man sweat labor has two marks, as it were, implanted by nature, so that it is truly personal, because work energy inheres in the person and belongs completely to him by whom it is expended, and for whose use it is destined by nature; and secondly, that it is necessary, because man has need of the fruit of his labors to preserve his life, and nature itself, which must be most strictly obeyed, commands him to preserve it. If labor should be considered only under the aspect that it is personal, there is no doubt that it would be entirely in the worker's power to set the amount of the agreed wage at too low a figure. For inasmuch as he performs work by his own free will, he can also by his own free will be satisfied with either a paltry wage for his work or even with none at all. But this matter must be judged far differently, if with the factor of personality we combine the factor of necessity, from which indeed the former is separable in thought but not in reality. In fact, to preserve one's life is a duty common to all individuals, and to neglect this duty is a crime. Hence arises necessarily the right of securing things to sustain life, and only a wage earned by his labor gives a poor man the means to acquire these things.
Let it be granted then that worker and employer may enter freely into agreements and, in particular, concerning the amount of the wage; yet there is always underlying such agreements an element of natural justice, and one greater and more ancient than the free consent of contracting parties, namely, that the wage shall not be less than enough to support a worker who is thrifty and upright. If, compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil, a worker accepts a harder condition, which although against his will he must accept because an employer or contractor imposes it, he certainly submits to force, against which justice cries out in protest.
But in these and similar questions, such as the number of hours of work in each kind of occupation and the health safeguards to be provided, particularly in factories, it will be better, in order to avoid unwarranted governmental intervention, especially since circumstances of business, season, and place are so varied, that decision be reserved to the organizations of which We are about to speak below, or else to pursue another course whereby the interests of the workers may be adequately safeguarded -- the State, if the occasion demands, to furnish help and protection.
If a worker receives a wage sufficiently large to enable him to provide comfortably for himself, his wife and his children, he will, if prudent, gladly strive to practice thrift; and the result will be, as nature itself seems to counsel, that after expenditures are deducted there will remain something over and above through which he can come into the possession of a little wealth. We have seen, in fact, that the whole question under consideration cannot be settled effectually unless it is assumed and established as a principle, that the right of private property must be regarded as sacred. Wherefore, the law ought to favor this right and, so far as it can, see that the largest possible number among the masses of the population prefer to own property.
If this is done, excellent benefits will follow, foremost among which will surely be a more equitable division of goods. For the violence of public disorder has divided cities into two classes of citizens, with an immense gulf lying between them. On the one side is a faction exceedingly powerful because exceedingly rich. Since it alone has under its control every kind of work and business, it diverts to its own advantage and interest all production sources of wealth and exerts no little power in the administration itself [sic] of the State. On the other side are the needy and helpless masses, with minds inflamed and always ready for disorder. But if the productive activity of the multitude can be stimulated by the hope of acquiring some property in land, it will gradually come to pass that, with the difference between extreme wealth and extreme penury removed, one class will become neighbor to the other. Moreover, there will surely be a greater abundance of the things which the earth produces. For when men know they are working on what belongs to them, they work with far greater eagerness and diligence. Nay, in a word, they learn to love the land cultivated by their own hands, whence they look not only for food but for some measure of abundance for themselves and their dependents. All can see how much this willing eagerness contributes to an abundance of produce and the wealth of a nation. Hence, in the third place, will flow the benefit that men can easily be kept from leaving the country in which they have been born and bred; for they would not exchange their native country for a foreign land if their native country furnished them sufficient means of living.
But these advantages can be attained only if private wealth is not drained away by crushing taxes of every kind. For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the commonweal. Public authority therefore would act unjustly and inhumanly, if in the name of taxes it should appropriate from the property of private individuals more than is equitable.
Finally, employers and workers themselves can accomplish much in this matter, manifestly through those institutions by the help of which the poor are opportunely assisted and the two classes of society are brought closer to each other. Under this category come associations for giving mutual aid; various agencies established by the foresight of private persons to care for the worker and likewise for his dependent wife and children in the event that an accident, sickness, or death befalls him; and foundations to care for boys and girls, for adolescents, and for the aged.
But associations of workers occupy first place, and they include within their circle clearly all the rest. The beneficent achievements of the guilds of artisans among our ancestors have long been well known. Truly, they yielded noteworthy advantages not only to artisans, but, as many monuments bear witness, brought glory and progress to the arts themselves. In our present age of greater culture, with its new customs and ways of living, and with the increased number of things required by daily life, it is most clearly necessary that workers' associations be adapted to meet the present need. It is gratifying that societies of this kind composed either of workers alone or of workers and employers together are being formed everywhere, and it is truly to be desired that they grow in number and in active vigor. Although We have spoken of them more than once, it seems well to show in this place that they are highly opportune and are formed by their own right, and, likewise to show how they should be organized and what they should do.
Inadequacy of his own strength, learned from experience, impels and urges a man to e
2004-06-12 13:52 | User Profile
I like paragraph 26:
[QUOTE]Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that a condition of human existence must be borne with, namely, that [B]in civil society the lowest cannot be made equal to the highest.[/B] Socialists, of course, agitate the contrary, [B]but all struggling against nature is vain[/B]. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community; for to carry on its affairs community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services, and to perform these diverse services men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings.[/QUOTE]
Social inequality does NOT of necessity constitute injustice.
Walter
2004-06-12 14:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]63. Let it be granted then that worker and employer may enter freely into agreements and, in particular, concerning the amount of the wage; yet there is always underlying such agreements an element of natural justice, and one greater and more ancient than the free consent of contracting parties, namely, that the wage shall not be less than enough to support a worker who is thrifty and upright. [B]If, compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil, a worker accepts a harder condition, which although against his will he must accept because an employer or contractor imposes it, he certainly submits to force, against which justice cries out in protest[/B].[/QUOTE]
Americans working the floor at your local Wal-Mart are making $15,000/year.
This is NOT enough for a man to support a wife and children.
It is a moral outrage that "cries out in protest."
Walter
2004-06-12 20:52 | User Profile
My initial reaction is: one more reason to be a Protestant, and reject the papal heresies.
But I wonder--what is the status of the 'Rerum Novarum' document in the Church? It is it not understood to be a binding pronouncement by the Pope, is it?
Well, anyway, thanks for a highlighting this very interesting passage.
2004-06-13 10:16 | User Profile
Darkstar: I was wrong - I guess this is the post I messed up. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Walter
[QUOTE=darkstar]Please explain. I see nothing in there that a good Protestant wouldn't agree with.
It's a Papal Encyclical, very much in force. Cited many times in the Catechism.
Which passage did you find most interesting?[/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 18:49 | User Profile
As to what 'a good Protestant' 'would agree to'--why do you believe that Protestants would have a united view on this subject? Anyway, one reason a good Protestant wouldn't agree is that the employer has no duty to provide a wage at any particular level, other than that agreed to. To claim otherwise is to put one's property at the mercy of those families who (according to the Pope) can rightfully demand higher wages even when their labor is not is worth these wages to the employer. These families will invariably be those who have more children than they can afford to support, and/or who are to lazy to inculcate useful skills in their children, and/or whose genetic background causes this to be difficult (in which case, again, the moral thing is to limit the size of the family).
Thus the Pope condems whites to sacrifce to the parasitical activities of poverty overbreeding, which will take place as blacks and Latinos produce more and more children in the awareness that these children will be have to be provided for 'with a living wage,'--and in the awareness that they can displace whites through this behavior.
And what do you mean by 'the Catechism'? This is confusing. I am sure that schoolchildren don't recite this kind of stuff, at least not in a normal church.
Someone wrote: 'Please explain. I see nothing in there that a good Protestant wouldn't agree with.
It's a Papal Encyclical, very much in force. Cited many times in the Catechism.
Which passage did you find most interesting?'
2004-06-13 19:29 | User Profile
Darkstar: I wrote that, but as I explained on another thread I spazzed the "edit" and "quote" functions. My apologies.
[QUOTE][darkstar]1. A Protestant could agree with what the Encyclical says, but would reject the idea that the Encyclical is true or insightful just because it is a Papal Encyclical. [/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
[QUOTE]The Protestant is fully able to disagree with these ideas (as he should), without religion coming into the picture. With the Catholic, it is more complex.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. We Catholics accept ecclesiastical authority. So, it isn't really "complex" for Catholics, who should study this document carefully and as a student studying the works of a master.
[QUOTE]As to what 'a good Protestant' 'would agree to'--why do you believe that Protestants would have a united view on this subject? [/QUOTE]
I don't believe that. There are 28,000 Protestant denominations, so clearly there are a lot of disagreements among them.
I do believe that most mainline Protestants would find little here to take issue with.
[QUOTE]Anyway, one reason a good Protestant wouldn't agree is that the employer has no duty to provide a wage at any particular level, other than that agreed to. To claim otherwise is to put one's property at the mercy of those families who (according to the Pope) can rightfully demand higher wages even when their labor is not is worth these wages to the employer. [/QUOTE]
Here we disagree. You seem to assume that there are no considerations outside maximization of profit. That isn't the traditional Christian view of economic relations. A "just wage" is at the heart of the system. In truth, it's all about requiring economic actors to internalize their costs. If an employer isn't offerring a wage that a man can support a family on, then his business of necessity externalizes the costs of maintaining the very civil society within which he chooses to carry on business. This cannot be allowed, as such businesses are by definition parasitc; they seek to avoid paying their fair share of the costs of maintaining civil society.
[QUOTE]These families will invariably be those who have more children than they can afford to support, and/or who are to lazy to inculcate useful skills in their children, and/or whose genetic background causes this to be difficult (in which case, again, the moral thing is to limit the size of the family). [/QUOTE]
I think that you're missing the point that we need far more children than we now have. Your reply does not evince a concern for society as a whole, and its pressing need to increase the birthrate.
[QUOTE]Thus the Pope condems whites to sacrifce to the parasitical activities of poverty overbreeding, which will take place as blacks and Latinos produce more and more children in the awareness that these children will be have to be provided for 'with a living wage,'--and in the awareness that they can displace whites through this behavior.[/QUOTE]
Quite to the contrary, Catholic social teaching contains a strong element of nationalism - men divided by the indicia of blood, culture, and sovereign territory. Thus nationalism would obviate the possibility of this sort of parasitic behaviour by out-groups by requiring those groups to have their own sovereign territory.
It is precisely Capitalism that enhances the opportunities of parasitic groups. The very disproportionate Jewish represenation on the boards and top management of American publicly traded companies is but one example. Capitalism's inability to see the existence of the human social organism due to its myopic concentration on the atomized individual leads to the general attitude that all men are fungible.
While the Catholic Church's hierarchy often take this view, it is antithetical to Catholic teaching. In contrast, it is the very stuff of Capitalism.
[QUOTE]But what is the status of a Papal Encyclical for a Catholic? The Catholic is not going to be ex-communicated if he disagrees, is he? [/QUOTE]
In theory, maybe. In practice, no. The fact that Distributism is not even mentioned in most Catholic parishes speaks volumes of that fact.
[QUOTE]And what do you mean by 'the Catechism'? This is confusing. I am sure that schoolchildren don't recite this kind of stuff, at least not in a normal church.[/QUOTE]
The [URL=http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm]Catechism of the Catholic Church [/URL] is the offical statement of Catholic teaching, promulgated sometime in the 1980's. I mentioned the Catechism in response to your question whether Rerum Novarum was still in force, and I meant to say that yes it most definitely is, inasmuch that the much more recent Catechism cites to it.
[QUOTE]3. I found it interesting that the Pope requires a 'living wage,' and claims that force is being used when a sub-'living wage' is offered instead. [/QUOTE]
As I mentioned above, I see it more in terms of an enterprise attempting to externalize the costs of social capital onto society. Again, Wal-mart paying Americans $15,000 to work on their stock rooms while offerring them assistance in filling out welfare applications (the accusation was made) is emblematic of the process.
Regards,
Walter
2004-06-13 19:57 | User Profile
A 'living wage' is certainly not part of 'the' traditional Christian view of economic relations. It is part of Catholic social teaching, which has long been insufficiently attentive to the demands of reason (note that I am note claiming that is been totally or even largely inattentive).
Only with the Reformation were large numbers of economists and philosophers able to see that economic laws and political science (in the Ancient sense) were not dependent on the pronouncements of religious leaders. From the period of the first through tenth centuries, issues of 'economic justice' were barely on the philosophical or theological horizon, being adjudicated by appeals to common law and scraps of Aristotelian teaching that assigned power firmly to the noble. Thus the Thomistic view, which put the idea of rights of sustenance and the like into the picture, was central to 'Christian' teaching for approximately four centuries out of the twenty that comprise Christian history, and even it did not explicitly include the notion of a 'living wage,' which in fact resulted from late 19th and 20th C intepretations of Aquinas.
You think that most Protestant denominations would accept the Pope's view of a living wage, but I see no reason to believe that this is the case. Of course the leadership of the liberal denominations would accept this, but what does that tell you? Very little.
You claim that rejection of the living wage doctrine involve a failure to recognize the need to increase the birth rate. But there are plenty of ways of increasing the birth rate besides requiring employers to pay economically non-competitive wages.
More to the point, I have zero interest in a general increase of the global birth-rate. In fact, I want it to go down. I am only interested in increasing the birth rate of low-fetitility peoples, such as whites and the Japanese.
I am seek the good of society as a whole, which is not dependent on any particular population size or fertility rate, but on much more complex factors. At present, in the West, one of those factors is higher white fertility and lower non-white fertility. Globally, it is much the same, except that some Asian people should perhaps also increase their fertility rates (depending on what they want to achieve).
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Darkstar: I wrote that, but as I explained on another thread I spazzed the "edit" and "quote" functions. My apologies.
Fair enough.
Agreed. We Catholics accept ecclesiastical authority. So, it isn't really "complex" for Catholics, who should study this document carefully and as a student studying the works of a master.
I don't believe that. There are 28,000 Protestant denominations, so clearly there are a lot of disagreements among them.
I do believe that most mainline Protestants would find little here to take issue with.
Here we disagree. You seem to assume that there are no considerations outside maximization of profit. That isn't the traditional Christian view of economic relations. A "just wage" is at the heart of the system. In truth, it's all about requiring economic actors to internalize their costs. If an employer isn't offerring a wage that a man can support a family on, then his business of necessity externalizes the costs of maintaining the very civil society within which he chooses to carry on business. This cannot be allowed, as such businesses are by definition parasitc; they seek to avoid paying their fair share of the costs of maintaining civil society.
I think that you're missing the point that we need far more children than we now have. Your reply does not evince a concern for society as a whole, and its pressing need to increase the birthrate.
Quite to the contrary, Catholic social teaching contains a strong element of nationalism - men divided by the indicia of blood, culture, and sovereign territory. Thus nationalism would obviate the possibility of this sort of parasitic behaviour by out-groups by requiring those groups to have their own sovereign territory.
It is precisely Capitalism that enhances the opportunities of parasitic groups. The very disproportionate Jewish represenation on the boards and top management of American publicly traded companies is but one example. Capitalism's inability to see the existence of the human social organism due to its myopic concentration on the atomized individual leads to the general attitude that all men are fungible.
While the Catholic Church's hierarchy often take this view, it is antithetical to Catholic teaching. In contrast, it is the very stuff of Capitalism.
In theory, maybe. In practice, no. The fact that Distributism is not even mentioned in most Catholic parishes speaks volumes of that fact.
The [URL=http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm]Catechism of the Catholic Church [/URL] is the offical statement of Catholic teaching, promulgated sometime in the 1980's. I mentioned the Catechism in response to your question whether Rerum Novarum was still in force, and I meant to say that yes it most definitely is, inasmuch that the much more recent Catechism cites to it.
As I mentioned above, I see it more in terms of an enterprise attempting to externalize the costs of social capital onto society. Again, Wal-mart paying Americans $15,000 to work on their stock rooms while offerring them assistance in filling out welfare applications (the accusation was made) is emblematic of the process.
Regards,
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-06-14 14:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]A 'living wage' is certainly not part of 'the' traditional Christian view of economic relations. It is part of Catholic social teaching, which has long been insufficiently attentive to the demands of reason (note that I am note claiming that is been totally or even largely inattentive).
Insufficently attentive to the demands of reason, or to the demands of the bankers and industrialists?
[QUOTE=darkstar]Only with the Reformation were large numbers of economists and philosophers able to see that economic laws and political science (in the Ancient sense) were not dependent on the pronouncements of religious leaders.[/QUOTE] I would say that only with the Reformation were large numbers of people convinced that commerce existed, for some reason, completely within its own sphere and was governed by "economic laws" that did not have to square with morality. Want to rip somebody off? That okay, you are maximizing your profits. Want to work children for 15 hours in unhealthy conditions for a pittance? That's cool, man, you're just rationally maximizing the utility of labor. All that Christian and Golden Rule stuff was fine for your friends, but whenever money changed hands, the Glorious Laws of Economics trumped all.
2004-06-14 20:41 | User Profile
To answer your question: probably both, although only the demands of reason were relevant to the argument I made.
What you would say about the Reformation should be of much interest for none.
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Insufficently attentive to the demands of reason, or to the demands of the bankers and industrialists?
I would say that only with the Reformation were large numbers of people convinced that commerce existed, for some reason, completely within its own sphere and was governed by "economic laws" that did not have to square with morality. Want to rip somebody off? That okay, you are maximizing your profits. Want to work children for 15 hours in unhealthy conditions for a pittance? That's cool, man, you're just rationally maximizing the utility of labor. All that Christian and Golden Rule stuff was fine for your friends, but whenever money changed hands, the Glorious Laws of Economics trumped all.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-14 20:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]1. To answer your question: probably both, although only the demands of reason were relevant to the argument I made.
Argument? It was rather more an assertion, since you provided no evidence to support your statement.
[QUOTE=darkstar] 2. What you would say about the Reformation should be of much interest for none.[/QUOTE] Wherefore the ad hominem attack? I have never been anything but civil to you. I only made a statement about the Reformation in reference to the statement you made about the Reformation. Perhaps we should simply allow the other posters to decide whose statement is of interest?
2004-06-14 21:19 | User Profile
Since you have been civil, I made a very civil ad hominen attack.
Also, you misunderstand what argument I was referring to. The argument had to with whether a 'living wage' was at the heart of Christian social teaching, not whether Catholicism has been sufficiently attentive to the demands of reason. As to this further point--no I didn't support this claim. (Other than the fact you that you have noted I did not support the claim, no one has yet criticized the claim in a coherent manner, so I will not provide any further support at this point.)
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Argument? It was rather more an assertion, since you provided no evidence to support your statement.
Wherefore the ad hominem attack? I have never been anything but civil to you. I only made a statement about the Reformation in reference to the statement you made about the Reformation. Perhaps we should simply allow the other posters to decide whose statement is of interest?[/QUOTE]
2004-06-14 23:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]The argument had to with whether a 'living wage' was at the heart of Christian social teaching, not whether Catholicism has been sufficiently attentive to the demands of reason. As to this further point--no I didn't support this claim. (Other than the fact you that you have noted I did not support the claim, no one has yet criticized the claim in a coherent manner, so I will not provide any further support at this point.)[/QUOTE] There was never a disagreement over whether a living wage was 'at the heart' of Christian social teaching, as you state above. I took issue with your original statement, which was:
[quote=darkstar]A 'living wage' is certainly not part of 'the' traditional Christian view of economic relations.
I agree it is not 'at the heart,' but it is false to say it is not 'part.' You would be hard-pressed to find any Christian teaching that condones exploitation.
2004-06-15 00:47 | User Profile
Oh, so that was what you took issue with?
Anyway, on to the new claims: you suggest that a 'living wage' is indeed part of 'the' traditional Christian tradition view of economics relations. What support do you offer? Because Christian social teaching would not condone exploitation.
Well, perhaps you have a different understandig of the 'living wage' doctrine than does Walter. I was responding to his views here, which are based on the views of a Pope.
In any case, I understand this doctrine to concern the issue of whether it is an act of force to pay an individual wages that are insufficient to support their family (however this increadibly subjective measure of 'sufficient' is to be taken). I would argue that, no, it is not, as both parties have agreed to the level of wages. If someone is in need of charity, then that is what you call it--charity. Does an employer have an obligation to give sufficient charity to his works, such that they can support their family? No, of course not, for the worker may be un-deserving, or their may more deserving and/or more needy individuals in the community.
This is fully in keeping with what is argued by Locke, Jefferson, Smith, Hoppe, and a host of other avowedly Protestant theorists. Now maybe by 'Christian teaching' you mean something other than the teaching of Christians who write on economic matters. Well, where could we look? There is Scripture, and there are the doctrinal statements of the various Protestant churches. Neither Scripture nor many of these statements addresses a 'living wage.'
So perhaps you are simply holding that to not take up the 'living wage' doctrine is to condone exploitation? But how are workers 'exploited,' if there is no fraud and they agree to the wage? Obviously, they are not being exploited, if one means by 'exploitation,' using others without their consent.
If paying low wages without fraud but with consent is, however, the kind of thing you would like to call 'exploitation,' then I would say 'exploitation' is a fully moral thing to be engaged in, and there is nothing in Scripture that rules it out. But of course, all this talk of 'exploitation' is just relying upon any number of hazy socialist ideas--people who called themselves 'socialists' developed this way of using the word--and is best just forgotten.
'Thou shalt not "exploit"' didn't make it onto the tablet.
[QUOTE=Quantrill]There was never a disagreement over whether a living wage was 'at the heart' of Christian social teaching, as you state above. I took issue with your original statement, which was:
'A 'living wage' is certainly not part of 'the' traditional Christian view of economic relations.'
I agree it is not 'at the heart,' but it is false to say it is not 'part.' You would be hard-pressed to find any Christian teaching that condones exploitation.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-16 14:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]'Thou shalt not "exploit"' didn't make it onto the tablet.[/QUOTE]
Well, Jesus and the Prophets made it pretty clear that the standard for morality in financial dealings was a bit higher than a pitiless "invisible hand." Oppressing the poor will land you in hell, at least that's how I'm reading the Gospel of Matthew.
But, that said, I agree that there is a real problem with information at the micro level - how after all can a farmer know what is a living wage that he pays his workers? Clearly, he can't. Even the top brains in our best universities couldn't agree on it. There are so many variables, and clearly it's hard to legislate such a thing.
Obviously, there needs to be a lot of play in the joints for the thing to work. Broad parameters must be set, and then the market must be allowed freely to work in those parameters.
The key is to focus on externalizing costs. The entire commercial law turns on this: the state's proper role is to prevent economic actors from externalizing costs from their own operations onto others or society as a whole.
I urge you to read [URL=http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2004/commentary040604wt.htm]Charlie Munger's speech [/URL], which touches on these points.
We have to devise a system that accounts for the costs of vice, environmental degradation, the need to keep families together, and so forth. All of these "social costs" are just as much a cost of any business as is rent and utilities, but as Munger points out they're hard to quantify, and the temptation is simply to ignore them.
What is the social cost of our sexualized advertising? Clearly, it's a lot, but we have no system to force Calvin Klein to internalize the social costs of running its kiddie porn ad campaigns. If we could do that, say by means of an excise tax for sexualized advertising as we do for cigarettes, then the free market would set the value of such things.
What is the social cost of brining in millions of women into the workforce, and driving down the wages of men who want to support families? Clearly, it's an enormous amount, but since it's hard to measure, economists choose to ignore it. Munger makes oblique reference to those costs, and forthrightly states that we need to tolerate some unfairness toward some groups in the name of the commonweal, and I suppose women here would certainly qualify. They need to stay home and each raise 4 kids for the good of society, and wages for men must include the additional costs of that. To say that the "free market" will solve it ignores the fact that the free market isn't a "free for all" but presumes the rule of law which is in turn based on the notion that everybody picks up their own costs.
So, I think Munger has the number of those libertarians who hide behind some rhetoric about free markets. He exposes them for the thieves they are - stealing the value of the social capital others built and maintain and putting it in their own pockets.
I'll be on the road a few days. I hope you'll all read the Munger speech.
I'll talk to you then.
Walter
2004-06-16 19:07 | User Profile
'Oppressing the poor' -- this is something the free market does? This makes no sense. Oppression is not possible apart from violence. Refusing to pay someone a wage they desire is not violence.
'[V]ice, environmental degradation, the need to keep families together, and so forth. All of these "social costs" are just as much a cost of any business as is rent and utilities....' I think not. Only environment degradation might be viewed as a cost; it is in any case a form of violence against the person and property of others, and permits others to respond with the violence of requiring reparation or modifications in others' use of property. 'Vice' and 'keeping families together' are areas that we all need to address, whether we own only personal property, or also corporate property. However, these areas are not like rent or utilities, where the renter or utility-owner, or their legitimate agents, can use violence if the corporation steals from them. If a corporation does something (non-coercive) that is judged to be harmful in the area of 'promoting vice' or 'keeping families together,' this needs to be addressed by economic pressure from trading partners and consumers, and other market mechanisms. To have the state address such matters is to abandon liberty to government officials--and the problem of state power has never been adaquately addressed, either by democratic or more elitist approaches. Certainly, in our present condition, more state power would simply lead to labelling all white racialist consciousness as 'harmful to families.' Similar evils would result in other situations.
2004-06-17 05:19 | User Profile
Walter Yannis,
Thank you for posting my favorite libertarian encyclical. In FR's halcyon days, I did the same:
[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2577a62b1d.htm"]Rerum Novarum [1-15, Man and Property][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2b7f5a1564.htm"]Rerum Novarum [16-30, The Church, the Rich, and the Poor][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b34dfe70a39.htm"]Rerum Novarum [31-47, The State][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b40fcd305b7.htm"]Rerum Novarum [48 - End, The Civil Society][/url]
[QUOTE] If, compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil, a worker accepts a harder condition, which although against his will he must accept because an employer or contractor imposes it, he certainly submits to force, against which justice cries out in protest.[/QUOTE] The argument for living wage here is an argument from individual rights, libertarian in essence. Just like a robber cannot justify the robbery on free market grounds, an employer cannot justify exploitative hiring. The key condition here is "compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil", which indicates coercion.
So, we have an argument against minimum wage in this sentence, as well as for it. If a low wage is accepted by a spouse or a teenager in order to augment a condition that is not threatening to life and dignity, -- for example, the wage is contracted by a wife to pay for a babysitter and get a break from domestic chores, or by a teenager for going on dates, then justice demands that the employer be free from coercion in negotiating a low wage.
If the wage is contracted in order to avoid poverty or bankrupcy, then the employer can be justly coerced to pay a living wage -- provided, of course, that the worker delivers a commensurate value.
Thirdly, if employment is sought for substantial reasons, but the employer is facing hardship himself if a living wage is paid, then the free market justly reigns once again.
2004-06-17 06:31 | User Profile
You can of course call this line of reasoning 'libertarian.' But to do so muddies the water of debate here severly, since 'libertarianism' normally refers to 'right-libertarianism,' and what we find below is a species of 'left-libertarianism.'
The argument we find is also a groundless one. One can, contrary to typical libertarian usage, define 'coercion' as something other than violence or its threat. But to do so teaches us nothing about why violence may be used to combat such 'coercion'--which is of course what the advocate of a state-imposed 'living wage' calls for.
What is the ultimate basis for this claim concerning the proper use of violence? The Church's authority. Thus, essentially, nothing.
2004-06-17 06:52 | User Profile
I agree that calling the Pope's argument "libertarian" was provocative on my part. Precisely, the Pope's argument is from individual rights understood as justice stemming from the Golden Rule. Latter day libertarianism acknowldeges such rights only sporadically.
Surely the Golden Rule applies to one choosing to use an elaborate machine that pulls the trigger of direct violence, just as much as to the one pulling the trigger.
So, the proper argument is, when an employer, acting as a moral agent, sets in motion a process that results in unnecessary economic injury to the worker. I outlined the pertinent elements of the argument. None of them refer to the Vatican's authority.
2004-06-17 07:26 | User Profile
I don't think you laid out an argument before concerning why violence can be used to combat acts that do not themselves involve violence.
Now you imply such an argument. You imply that engaging in apparently purely consensual acts of hiring and firing are not in fact consensual, because somehow the employer makes use of 'an elaborate machine that pulls the trigger of direct violence....' You also claim that the employer, in refusing to pay a certain wage level, is causing 'unnecessary' economic injury.
You will have to explain how the employer is using violence in some complex way, if that is indeed your claim. As to this point about the economic injury being 'unnecessary'--well, clearly the employer thought it was necessary for some or another purpose (such as making a profit). The real question is always: whose view of necessity prevails, and how? Is it by violence, or not?
2004-06-18 03:20 | User Profile
You bend my position a bit far, but you are correct that I did not elaborate enough to prevent such bending. I do not see a violation of rights in most acts of hiring. Nor do I call for use of force when a violation of rights does occur, for reasons most libertarian-leaning people can articulate, namely, that some violations should not be dealt with through the blunt tool of law. I do not think Leo XIII calls for a minimum-wage law in the Encyclical either.
Let us consider three scenarios.
A and B negotiate an employment contract. Both have access to other options and choose the terms free of any coercion. Morally, the freedom of contract rules here.
A has a job that he can fill from many applicants. B has no other job prospects, and no other assets. The negotiated wage is then infinitesimal in abstraction and limited only by B's expense of getting to work in reality. A's business is suffering as well, he is no better off than B. Here, both players are excused by economic necessity.
Same as (2) but now A has substantial profit.
My argument is that in (3) and in (3) alone B's rights are violated as per the Golden Rule. Indeed, as A takes advantage of the labor market and hires B at a pittance, he causes B's misery voluntarily, -- he could raise B's wage and still sustain the business. I understand the Pope's passage that I cited a few posts above in this sense.
I realize that the boundary between (1), (2), and (3) is fuzzy. I also realize that there are many ways A can cure the injustice in (3). For example, A may save up the profit to open another business, and employ, albeit at a pittance, people that are presently starving. That would be an argument to not have a living wage law, but it would not be an argument against moral culpability of A's greed, -- the kind of argument the Vicar of Christ has a duty to make.
I have a busy weekend ahead but will return to this next week.
2004-06-18 09:06 | User Profile
In case (3), the employer could hire at a low wage and spend the money saved by not offering a higher one in charity. This is what he does if he hires at a higher wage.
First, we must be clear that this an act of charity, not the paying of a worker what the workers is owed by right. Second, we have to recognize that there are endless needy people in the world, not just one's employees; and that there are other projects worthy of funding beyond helping those lacking the financial resources need for basic needs.
In any given situation, the right thing to do might be to give charity to one's employees. Very often, though, the employer's money is best directed elsewhere.
2004-06-19 11:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=annalex]Walter Yannis,
Thank you for posting my favorite libertarian encyclical. In FR's halcyon days, I did the same:
[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2577a62b1d.htm"]Rerum Novarum [1-15, Man and Property][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2b7f5a1564.htm"]Rerum Novarum [16-30, The Church, the Rich, and the Poor][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b34dfe70a39.htm"]Rerum Novarum [31-47, The State][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b40fcd305b7.htm"]Rerum Novarum [48 - End, The Civil Society][/url]
The argument for living wage here is an argument from individual rights, libertarian in essence. Just like a robber cannot justify the robbery on free market grounds, an employer cannot justify exploitative hiring. The key condition here is "compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil", which indicates coercion.
So, we have an argument against minimum wage in this sentence, as well as for it. If a low wage is accepted by a spouse or a teenager in order to augment a condition that is not threatening to life and dignity, -- for example, the wage is contracted by a wife to pay for a babysitter and get a break from domestic chores, or by a teenager for going on dates, then justice demands that the employer be free from coercion in negotiating a low wage.
If the wage is contracted in order to avoid poverty or bankrupcy, then the employer can be justly coerced to pay a living wage -- provided, of course, that the worker delivers a commensurate value.
Thirdly, if employment is sought for substantial reasons, but the employer is facing hardship himself if a living wage is paid, then the free market justly reigns once again.[/QUOTE]
Outstanding post, I'm pleased to have you here.
I agree that coercion is the thing, but the problem is that the employer usually just can't have the information required to make the call, or so it seems to me. From the employer's eye-level view, he almost never will be able to say whether his offer is objectively exploitative.
As Rerum Novarum indicates, the free market can set wages well, but the problem is that this assumes that each side has a basically level playing field. But that's not the case when a guy or gal negotiates wages with Wal-Mart.
I don't have any quick answers for that puzzle, but in general I think that the best the state can do is to remove the factors that make for an uneven playing field, such as especially preventing vast concentrations of wealth severed from its owners and shielded from liability by the corporate organizational form from dominating the economic landscape. Small and especially family businesses are generally more conducive to the mercy factor than corporations run by faceless bureucrats with interests much more adverse to the workers.
Alternatively, the state could encourage big unionization to level the playing field against the big corporations (only the UAW could hope to wring concessions for GM, after all), but that has problems of its own.
Distributism has a better answer, by adopting a "small is beautiful" policy - at least for most enterprises.
Did you read the Munger article?
Again, it's great to have you here.
Walter
2004-06-23 16:08 | User Profile
Darkstar,
If the employer was able to utilize the non-competitive labor market and hire an underpaid worker, then the employer harmed that particular worker, and owes restitution to that worker in particular. He can only remedy the situation through charity or some beneficial risk-taking inasmuch as the knowledge of who was harmed and how much is incomplete.
Walter Yannis,
I haven't read the Munger article and will do so one day. I agree completely with your post, and thank you for the kind words.
2004-06-23 17:22 | User Profile
'If the employer was able to utilize the non-competitive labor market and hire an underpaid worker, then the employer harmed that particular worker....' You can claims this, but why would anyone believe this sort of general claim? There is no point in lobbying a claim like this out there without offering an explanation.
Furthermore, even if 'harm' results, that does not necessarily mean restitution is owed. Much depends on how we understand 'harm.' For example, I might 'harm' a white liberal for telling him that he is 'a sick little race-traitor' for supporting affirmative action. But I don't own him anything. Likewise, I might still 'harm' a Mexican by paying him only $8 an hour (how is not clear to me, but maybe Annalex can work on that), instead of the $15 he needs to support his six children. But I don't own him anything.
[QUOTE=annalex]Darkstar,
If the employer was able to utilize the non-competitive labor market and hire an underpaid worker, then the employer harmed that particular worker, and owes restitution to that worker in particular. He can only remedy the situation through charity or some beneficial risk-taking inasmuch as the knowledge of who was harmed and how much is incomplete.
Walter Yannis,
I haven't read the Munger article and will do so one day. I agree completely with your post, and thank you for the kind words.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-23 19:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=annalex]Walter Yannis,
Thank you for posting my favorite libertarian encyclical. In FR's halcyon days, I did the same:
[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2577a62b1d.htm"]Rerum Novarum [1-15, Man and Property][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2b7f5a1564.htm"]Rerum Novarum [16-30, The Church, the Rich, and the Poor][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b34dfe70a39.htm"]Rerum Novarum [31-47, The State][/url] [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b40fcd305b7.htm"]Rerum Novarum [48 - End, The Civil Society][/url] [/QUOTE]
Again, good to see you Annalex. Yes this brings back the good old days. I wonder, do you remember the discussion we had on the encyclical written on the 40 year anniversy of Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo annowritten in 1931, which developed the social doctrine of [I]Rerum Novarum[/I], along with some other timely commentary as I recall on the political developments of the day? Walter ought to be familar with Quadragesimo anno also.
[I]Quadragesimo anno[/I] was apparently written by Ignaz Seipel, "the fighting prelate", who headed the Social Christian Party and the government of Austria during the factious years of the twenties, leading these Austrian conservatives against the Radical Socialists of Bruno Bauer.
2004-06-23 20:24 | User Profile
Darkstar,
I meant "harm" as "violation of rights". If the employer had to compete for the labor of the worker and they ended up at $8/hr, the employer owes that particular worker nothing, even if $8/hr is not a living wage. The employer may owe a general charity to the pool of workers if they starve, just like you suggested a few posts above. There has been no violation of rights, just a depressed market condition.
If the $8/hr wage was NOT arrived at competitively, and is less than the competitive rate of pay, then it is a violation of rights, as we discussed previously. Then restitution is owed to the particular worker.
Okiereddust
All my Rerum Novarum stuff is still on FR, but your posts are probably gone, weren't you nuked? I recall arguing something along the lines that the Papacy had declined in the intervening 40 years, producing the wimpy Quadragisimo Anno. I may have a different perspective now that my libertarianism declined as well. Quoting myself:
[QUOTE] Sadly, this visionary work did not lay the foundation for social progress in the 20th century, filled with wars, revolutions, and virtually unchecked growth of the state. Forty years later Pope Pius XI wrote [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html"][color=#0000ff]Quadragesimo Anno[/color][/url], which altered the view of God-willed autonomy of socioeconomic man presented by Rerum Novarum and neutered its message of individualism. Quadragesimo Anno did so by a quiet substitution of Leo XIIIââ¬â¢s common good as an aggregate measure of individual autonomy with a common good as a delicate balance between property rights, demands of human dignity divorced from individual rights, and collective interests nebulously defined as ââ¬Ånecessities of social livingââ¬Â. It is regrettable that Rerum Novarum left its understanding of common good, clear from the overall context, formally undefined. Quadragesimo Anno also ignores the distinction drawn by Leo XIII between the state and voluntary civic institutions. Pius XIââ¬â¢s encyclical tacitly endorses the socialist view of the state as an arbiter between the individual and the collective, then, not without hesitation, goes on to condemn the socialist movement in the free world for its materialism. The encyclical roundly and unhesitatingly condemns communism and hard core socialism (busy at work starving farmers in 1931) as its dark precursor.
([url="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b40fcd305b7.htm"]http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b40fcd305b7.htm[/url]) [/QUOTE]
2004-06-23 21:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=annalex]Okiereddust
All my Rerum Novarum stuff is still on FR, but your posts are probably gone, weren't you nuked? I recall arguing something along the lines that the Papacy had declined in the intervening 40 years, producing the wimpy Quadragisimo Anno. I may have a different perspective now that my libertarianism declined as well. Quoting myself:[/QUOTE]
Pleasant surprise, I (Okiereddust) was not nuked! All my posts are still there! (Although I feel uneasy about mentioning it, in case the FR kommissars might decide to correct this oversight). In a later incantation (okiegolddust) I was nuked, but for some reason JR decided to leave my far more numerous reddust posts up.
Klemperer's comments on Quadragisimo Anno which I posted on that thread I think are still interesting.
[quote=Okiereddust - FreiRepublik]Klemperer writes "With the proclamation of Pius XI ofthe great social encyclical "Quadragesimo Anno" on May 15, 1931, the Church had embraced the corporate state as a solution for the ills of modern society".
Referring to the influence of Othmar Spann.
In retrospect, I think the unreserved embrace of the corporate state and the somewhat mercurial Othmar Spann by Seipel may have been due to the complex state of politics in pre-Anchluss Austria, and the complex dynamics of the politics Seipel appeared to be playing, warming up to Italy and Mussolini's corporatist state as a defense against Anchluss, especially as the Weimer republic declined and the Third Reich loomed menacingly. But it's water under the bridge - only one person here even knew who Spann was besides me, and he's been somewhat discredited personally.
2004-06-24 03:56 | User Profile
Annalex: What got you kicked off FR?
Walter
2004-06-24 04:13 | User Profile
Although I am very competitive, I wouldn't want to violate your rights (as we discussed earlier). Women must be paid the wage that is competitive! Otherwise they are not equal to men. Still, the wage that it competitive cannot be computed in a purely free market, which is specious (Cf. the Good Scholar's work).
[QUOTE=annalex]
If the $8/hr wage was NOT arrived at competitively, and is less than the competitive rate of pay, then it is a violation of rights, as we discussed previously. Then restitution is owed to the particular worker.
[/QUOTE]
2004-06-24 04:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Annalex: What got you kicked off FR?
Walter[/QUOTE]This might be for the "how I got kicked FR" thread. I think though I'll have to hear it from the horses mouth that annalex probably can still post at FR, its just he tired of it's increasingly monotonous Bush cheerleader post 9/11 tone, along with the constant turnover of people on his bump list, such as Y.T., who included I think some of the more interesting posters on his "pursuit of liberty" threads. The people who always thought pursuit of liberty = electing more Republicans, nothing more, nothing less, weren't the theorizing type.
2004-06-24 15:24 | User Profile
I am in good standing at FR and post the Vulgate Gospel daily mass readings on the Catholic thread. I post little else.
I, of course, disagree with FR's lemming-style Republicanism, but I respect the editorial direction of any forum owner, because I think that property rights trump free speech. I don't hide my political views, which in the past couple years began to depart sharply from Jim Robinson's, but I would not initiate posts that contravene his policy. The Christian ghetto there is still very good. I guess, I would make a good slave...
I also post on LibertyForum, but lately it became difficult to find substantive discussions of anything there, and besides I drifted away from hardcore libertarianism.