From an email:
A clear thinking Colorado priest was asked to lead thousands of delegates in prayer at the state Republican convention. What he said next caused quite a stir in the convention hall. See for yourself...
___________________________
Related... (Added by Storm'n Norm'n)
The following excerpted from:
Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
"...The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of
danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of
the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this,
that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion
to pervert men's judgments and to stir up the people to revolt.
3. In any case we clearly see,
and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be
found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the
majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were
abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their
place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence,
by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated
and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked
competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which,
although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different
guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men.
To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are
concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very
rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a
yoke little better than that of slavery itself.
4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the
poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and
contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all,
to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus
transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present
mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen
will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly
powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working
man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover,
emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the
functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
5. It is surely undeniable
that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive
of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own.
If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the
purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his
needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not
only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just
as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater
security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his
wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus
purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he
receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that
ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring
to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at
the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty
of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of
increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
6. What is of far greater moment, however, is
the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to
possess property as his own. This is
one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for
the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main
instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a
fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of
choice. One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation
of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie
within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are
moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these
suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand,
the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as
the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal
nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its
completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and
to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who
are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and
distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is
endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely
for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to
hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that
perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into
use, continue for further use in after time.
7. This becomes still more clearly evident if
man's nature be considered a little more deeply. For man, fathoming by his
faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present,
and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the
power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his
power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present
welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time
yet to come. Hence, man not
only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch
as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future.
Man's needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they
demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a
source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look
to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely
in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of
any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.
8. The fact that God has given the earth for the use
and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of
private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in
the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but
rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the
limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry,
and by the laws of individual races."
No comments:
Post a Comment