Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rdf
There is nothing at all surprising in any American Statesman of the first 100 years of the Republic thinking, with Locke and Smith, that labor lies at the basis of rights in property and human economic activity, and that it gives things their real value.

Surely you must acknowledge the difference between Locke's theory of property and the later development of the labor theory of value concept. The two are not anywhere near the same thing, and from what Lincoln's works include, all suggestions are that his leanings were toward the latter, not that using Locke as a role model is anything better.

The most specific commentary Lincoln gives on the subject is found in some notes he made for a speech around the time of his congressional term. Locke's concerns lie with the establishment of property. The labor theory's concern lies with securing to the laborer the fruits of his production that have purported been removed from him by the employment process and those who carry out the business of that place of employment. Lincoln's own wording of it put it as the following: "To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." Lincoln divided labor into three categories, asserting only the first's legitimacy and of the rest classifying them as "heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of it's just rights." Lincoln saw the tariff policy as the means by which the government achieved this "worthy object."

I notice you also maintain your latch onto John Locke, also mentioning Smith. Please note that with Smith I do not take issue. His economic thinking is indisputably of practical origin. It functions about as well as can be expected in its congruence with common sense and liberty, and the capitalist principles that derived from it are clearly the preferable of the economic theories available.

But with Locke, i've said it before and I'll say it again, it is difficult to have him without the undesirable consequences of empiricism. Always keep that in mind while reading him. And if you really want to see what it's all about, read David Hume's Enquiry.

376 posted on 06/22/2002 11:52:38 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist
I've taught Locke and Smith for more than 20 years, and I'm perfectly content to let all I have posted stand.

Moreover, I don't think our to and fro about these things does us or anyone else any good.

As to the past, I think the national consensus about Lincoln, that he was wise and great, is true.

Concerning current political matters, I suspect that we agree about much, and we should work for the good we can do in our own times.

Best to you and all,

Richard F.

377 posted on 06/23/2002 6:42:41 PM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson