In the Encyclical however you commend the application
to the ordinary relations of life, under normal
conditions, of principles that in ethics are only to be
tolerated under extraordinary conditions. You are driven
to this assertion of false rights by your denial of true
rights. The natural right which each man has is not that
of demanding employment or wages from another man; but
that of employing himself — that of applying by his
own labor to the inexhaustible storehouse which the
Creator has in the land provided for all men. Were that
storehouse open, as by the single tax we would open it,
the natural demand for labor would keep pace with the
supply, the man who sold labor and the man who bought it
would become free exchangers for mutual advantage, and
all cause for dispute between workman and employer would
be gone. For then, all being free to employ themselves,
the mere opportunity to labor would cease to seem a boon;
and since no one would work for another for less, all
things considered, than he could earn by working for
himself, wages would necessarily rise to their full
value, and the relations of workman and employer be
regulated by mutual interest and convenience.
This is the only way in which they can be
satisfactorily regulated.
Your Holiness seems to assume that there is some just
rate of wages that employers ought to be willing to pay
and that laborers should be content to receive, and to
imagine that if this were secured there would be an end
of strife. This rate you evidently think of as that which
will give working-men a frugal living, and perhaps enable
them by hard work and strict economy to lay by a little
something.
But how can a just rate of wages be fixed
without the “higgling of the market” any more
than the just price of corn or pigs or ships or paintings
can be so fixed? And would not arbitrary
regulation in the one case as in the other check that
interplay that most effectively promotes the economical
adjustment of productive forces? Why should buyers of
labor, any more than buyers of commodities, be called on
to pay higher prices than in a free market they are
compelled to pay? Why should the sellers of labor be
content with anything less than in a free market they can
obtain? Why should working-men be content with frugal
fare when the world is so rich? Why should they be
satisfied with a lifetime of toil and stinting, when the
world is so beautiful? Why should not they also desire to
gratify the higher instincts, the finer tastes? Why
should they be forever content to travel in the steerage
when others find the cabin more enjoyable?
... read
the whole letter