Response to "The Priority of Labor"

A friend recently sent me an email promoting the Catholic teaching or principle of the priority of labor over capital. The Church has been promoting this view for centuries and it is to the detriment of the working poor. What they should be teaching is equity in pay, freedom of movement, and promoting education that would enable workers to become skilled. Below is my initial response to the lead in line to Pope John Paul II's "The Priority of Labor". I reserve the right to respond in greater detail.

B.D.,

Thank you for bringing the thread up again. This is part of why I think it would be interesting to explore the topic, but I am not interested in taking up positions and then defending them. I am more interested in exploring the assumptions of both sides and testing the ideas a bit. For example, the mondragon link you sent has a line "We must first of all recall a principle that has always been taught by the church, the principle of the priority of labour over capital." On the surface that seem compassionate and consistent with deferential treatment of the poor. Until that is, you consider what is meant by capital. Capital is simply stored labor. Nothing more. It is the product of labor that was not consumed but was rather saved. Understood this way there can be no preference between capital and labor. If anything, once basic needs are met, surely there should be a preference for the moral behavior of delayed gratification that enables the accumulation of capital versus the luxury consumption that is usually the alternative.

Moreover, capital, that is the saved product of labor, is the property of the producer created by their moral act of delaying gratification for the purpose of improving the well-being of their family, business, or interests. This is different than excessive profits that exploit the laborer. For indeed the working class have proven better savers (creators of capital) than the debt ridden upper class of recent years. Surely the church would not think that the labor of a financial engineer on wall street should receive priority over the lifetime savings of a grocer, plumber, or dare I say, teacher?

There is an aversion to capitalism within the tradition of Catholicism. I was raised with it and still find myself falling into the pattern of thinking that money is a corrosive element in our society. However, specialized labor leads to surpluses, which can be consumed or saved. The saved (delayed gratification) product of labor can be used to hire new workers, build public goods, or even just protect the worker from downturns in income or the vagaries of life including health crises. I think we need to reconsider the basic assumptions of what is right behavior and what the principles we hold lead to as consequences. A society or tradition that teaches labor over capital might just as well teach consumption over saving. This is the worst thing we could possibly teach the working poor if we want to help them overcome their poverty.

Thanks again for the example.

Healthcare Reform Comment

Here is my brief response to Frank Rich's latest column.

I would like national healthcare. It would be great not to worry about whether we can afford medical care for our children or have to consider the loss of benefits before switching employment. The problem is that enacting such a plan continues to move us away from the model of a restricted role for federal government where only those powers enumerated in the constitution are available to it and the rest are reserved to the people as individuals or to the many states.

You may choose to demonize our fellow citizens and lump the majority of conservatives in with the gun toting crazies but that dismissive attitude fails to illuminate their legitimate reluctance to grant ever more authority to politicians in DC.

How is it that states, not the federal government, are able to provide education to all their students yet you think it appropriate that they not do the same for health care? Maybe you don't see a difference between the roles of state and national governments except that the national government can be used as a means to achieve your goals in one swoop.

The rights we maintain, the gift of Liberty, is the result of a conscious choice on the part of our society and is only maintained by restraining the power of the government. As much as you don't want to give Republicans authority to say who can and cannot marry, so too we must not be seduced into using the awesome power of the federal government to coerce behavior that is not within it's constrained and enumerated authority.

What Massachusetts has begun let others follow. Let our states compete for workers by enacting health reform that improves their competitiveness. Let's keep the Federal Government out of anything for which it is not absolutely necessary. Failing that, let's have a real national debate and amend the Constitution if needed to facilitate the form of government we find preferable.

What are you reading?

With the blessing of downtime peculiar to the teaching profession many of us have been catching up on our reading.

Our school's "One Book, One School" book this year is

"Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson and David Relin.


I've also been reading:

"The Road to Serfdom" by Freidrich von Hayek

"Thomas Paine: The Right's of Man" by Christopher Hitchens

"The Discourses" by Machiavelli

"Why Lazarus Laughed" by Wei Wu Wei

"Banks and Politics in America" by Hammond

"Investments" by Bodie, Kane, and Marcus

"In Defense of Property" Dietze

"The Dirty Dozen", Robert Levy and William Mellor

As well as a rereading of some favorites...

"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins

"The Tao te Ching" translated by Stephen Mitchell

Among the numerous children books read out loud to my daughters was one stand out

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" by J.K. Rowling


Still to be completed before summer's end:

"Goedel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstader

"The Word in a Phrase: A Brief History of Aphorism" by James Geary

"The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living" by Fritjof Capra

"The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the Twenty-First Century", edited by John Brockman


Thank you to those that recommended or in some cases even lent the books above. There is little finer than a good book from a friend. Please mention some of your own summer reading especially if you recommend them to fellow members of WeeklyMusings.

Response to Paul Krugman's "Obama's Trust Problem"

I am an independent who voted for President Obama. He won my vote by promising to leave Iraq and to repeal the outrageous doctrine of preemptive war. As a conservative I would prefer to see healthcare, education, etc. left to the many states. However, elections have consequences and we should expect candidates to live up to their stated principles.

Conservatives weren't able to stop President Bush from launching his ill-conceived war of aggression nor were we able to restrain his prolific spending. Even though he was elected on a campaign of fiscal discipline and humility in international affairs. We all remember his promise to avoid "nation building".

The financial crisis was shared by both administrations and both spent our children's money to prop up corrupt financial institutions. The wars, the spending, the bailouts, all were done against a backdrop of enormous protests and flagrant disregard of the people's will.

The vested interests of lobbyist and corporations are winning on every major issue. In regards to the war, Blackwater, Bechtel, Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, etc. won massive contracts, billions of dollars. The people lost. We lost our brothers and sisters in arms, our standing among the nations of the world, and some would argue our opportunity to defeat radical Islam.

On the issue of the bailouts, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Berkshire Hathaway, etc. won to the delight of their again enriched executives. The people lost and will be paying for it dearly. The massive bailouts are a redistribution of wealth from the many to the connected few.

Now, on healthcare, the insurance, medical equipment, and drug companies are winning. Once more the forces of special interests are arrayed against the will of the people and look ready to win.

If with a majority in congress and a Democrat in the White House, progressives are not able to have their voices heard and enact universal healthcare then I fear it may be time to reconsider the efficacy of our national government. The system is not working.