Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
2023 contract
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 5392563" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/fair.htm[/URL]</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>The world is agreed that <em>labor</em> is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall <em>hire</em> laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or <em>buy</em> them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either <em>hired</em> laborers, or <em>slaves</em>. They further assume that whoever is once a <em>hired</em> laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave. This is the <em>"mud-sill"</em> theory.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no <em>such</em> relation between capital and labor, as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life, in the condition of a hired laborer, that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not <em>first</em> existed -- that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior -- greatly the superior -- of capital.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>They do not deny that there is, and probably always will be, <em>a</em> relation between labor and capital. The error, as they hold, is in assuming that the <em>whole</em> labor of the world exists within that relation. A few men own capital; and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital, hire, or buy, another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class -- neither work for others, nor have others working for them. Even in all our slave States, except South Carolina, a majority of the whole people of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters. In these Free States, a large majority are neither <em>hirers</em> or <em>hired</em>. Men, with their families -- wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, labor with their own hands, and also buy slaves or hire freemen to labor for them; but this is only a <em>mixed</em>, and not a <em>distinct</em> class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class. Again, as has already been said, the opponents of the <em>"mud-sill"</em> theory insist that there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. There is demonstration for saying this. Many independent men, in this assembly, doubtless a few years ago were hired laborers. And their case is almost if not quite the general rule.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 5392563, member: 63706"] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/fair.htm[/URL] [B]The world is agreed that [I]labor[/I] is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall [I]hire[/I] laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or [I]buy[/I] them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either [I]hired[/I] laborers, or [I]slaves[/I]. They further assume that whoever is once a [I]hired[/I] laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave. This is the [I]"mud-sill"[/I] theory. But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no [I]such[/I] relation between capital and labor, as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life, in the condition of a hired laborer, that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not [I]first[/I] existed -- that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior -- greatly the superior -- of capital. They do not deny that there is, and probably always will be, [I]a[/I] relation between labor and capital. The error, as they hold, is in assuming that the [I]whole[/I] labor of the world exists within that relation. A few men own capital; and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital, hire, or buy, another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class -- neither work for others, nor have others working for them. Even in all our slave States, except South Carolina, a majority of the whole people of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters. In these Free States, a large majority are neither [I]hirers[/I] or [I]hired[/I]. Men, with their families -- wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, labor with their own hands, and also buy slaves or hire freemen to labor for them; but this is only a [I]mixed[/I], and not a [I]distinct[/I] class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class. Again, as has already been said, the opponents of the [I]"mud-sill"[/I] theory insist that there is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. There is demonstration for saying this. Many independent men, in this assembly, doubtless a few years ago were hired laborers. And their case is almost if not quite the general rule.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
2023 contract
Top