Replies

Lincoln acted to free slaves based on his morally certain understanding of the value of men, as reflected in the comment quoted by Willie Green.

I've read all the arguments about the Constitutionality of Lincoln's action, and am fully aware that he declared war to 'preserve the Union,' not "to free the slaves."

Of course, one can also postulate, defensibly, that he REALLY wanted to 'free the slaves,' and used 'the Union' as an excuse which was acceptable to Northern interests.

In either case, the moral axiom must stand and must be defended. Labor has priority over capital. If you don't agree, that's fine: but you cannot be a Conservative and believe otherwise.

Had Lincoln undertaken to the civil war to free the slaves then I would fully support that action and anyone who was a firm believer in the Constitution would as well. However you can find speeches where Lincoln specifically said the opposite. I don't know what he really wished to accomplish and neither do you. Like Kerry and most politicians you can usually find that his position on the issues depended on the audience. Using a Lincoln quote to support any moral axiom therefore is a little silly.

Now...why can't I be a conservative if I don't believe that labor has priority over capital? Capital has intrinsic value. A dollar is a dollar no matter how I spend it. Labor value, if any, can only be measured by the usefulness of the labor.

Let's say I have flour, apples, eggs, baking soda, shortening, salt sugar, milk, and various spices. The average cook could make a delicious pie. A great cook could make some extraordinary confection that far surpasses a pie. Without labor I simply have cooking materials, yet labor without expertise or motivation and I'm lucky to get a pie. Incompetent labor could actually destroy any inherent value of the ingredients. Without capital of some type the cooks wouldn't even be cooking. Labor in and of itself CAN have value but it doesn't have INTRINSIC value. Capital can be more valuable if used correctly but it's minimum value is fixed. It has inherent value despite it's usage.

One could argue that capital can not be created without labor. That is true up to a point until you come to the conclusion that if you are starting with nothing but yourself and your potential of labor, then you are in fact your own capital and you will invest yourself into your work to make more capital.

I do not believe that capital has priority over labor, nor do I believe the opposite. Capital can not increase it's value without labor. Labor can not find value without capital, hence we have created a capitalistic system.

The more I think about this...isn't capital really just a representative of applied labor? Perhaps discussing the two as if they are separate entities presents a false dichotomy.

In either case, the moral axiom must stand and must be defended. Labor has priority over capital.

It is the sweat of Man's labor that creates capital.
In the pre-Civil War southern states, the entire socio-economic structure was based on a foundation of slave labor. All arguements that attempt to minimize and discount this fact, and attribute the war to less significant, supposedly-unrelated factors are an excercise in diversionary hypocrisy.