Last week, we discussed the inherent limitations of social welfare programs and their effects on American families. But we overlooked some essential philosophy: the principle of non-contradiction, which guides our understanding of truth and reality.
The principle is simple. You can’t ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time. Said another way, you can’t stand on both the beach and a mountaintop at the same time. You have to choose one or the other.
We use this principle every day, and it applies to governance. We can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.
Aristotle was the first to systematically explore and defend the principle of non-contradiction in his work, Metaphysics, written around 350 BC. The tome explored the foundations of reality, existence, and being. Aristotle emphasized that without non-contradiction, distinguishing between truth and fiction becomes impossible and leads to absurdity.
He argued that if we deny this principle, we blur the lines between what is true and false, making reality both true and false simultaneously. It would destroy the foundation for debate or discourse. If all contradictions are true, then we would have to logically accept unsound arguments as true. This would effectively mean everything is true, and nothing is true. Aristotle stated, “Without the principle of non-contradiction, we could not know anything that we do know.”
Aristotle’s philosophy directly influenced one of America’s most revered leaders, President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s leadership exemplified the practical application of non-contradiction.
President Lincoln strongly agreed with Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. Before his service as president, Lincoln was a lawyer. He was known for his clear reasoning, persuasive arguments, and ability to simplify complex legal issues.
During the Civil War, Lincoln's approach to leadership demonstrated the principle in action. In an 1862 draft titled Meditation on the Divine Will, Lincoln wrote, “God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time.” He argued that the union couldn’t sustain itself half-slave and half-free; it must be one or the other. He believed in a clear, non-contradictory stance in policy and morality.
Additionally, Lincoln had a strong focus on labor and the value of one’s work. This influenced his opinion on freedom for black Americans. There were limited social programs in Lincoln’s time. But Lincoln believed in the value of labor inside the capitalist structure. In his work Fragments of a Tariff Discussion, Lincoln wrote that at creation, the Almighty said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.’’
In the same piece, he wrote that the goal of government, or “a most worthy object of any good government,” is to ensure that each worker receives a livable share of his work, or “each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible.”
He was committed to fairness and justice within the economic system. Free workers had a right to pursue prosperity as a product of their work, and enslaved workers had both a right to freedom and a right to pursue prosperity through their work.
Some claim Lincoln didn’t lead the fight for labor rights, and we didn’t fight the war over slavery. In fact, Lincoln led the fight for the right of enslaved workers to be paid at all.
Lincoln’s commitment to non-contradictory principles in governance echoes the Constitution, itself a non-contradictory legal framework.
The foundational principles of fairness and equality embedded in American governance and the legal philosophy of the US Constitution support Lincoln’s view that workers should be paid a livable share of wages. From the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to…establish Justice…(and)…promote the general Welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble’s objectives create a framework for laws that support citizens' economic well-being. From Lincoln's perspective, maintaining a union meant conserving a system in which laws aligned with the fundamental values of fairness and equality.
The Constitution derives the premise that individuals have the right to pursue a prosperous livelihood from the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Though not legally binding, the Declaration philosophically informs the Constitution. Individuals earning a living from their work is part of their pursuit of happiness and liberty.
Lincoln’s non-contradictory logic applied to modern labor suggests that if a government commits to the welfare of its citizens, it can’t simultaneously endorse policies that undermine individual economic security. This translates into an employer's responsibility to pay fair wages and a government duty to regulate that standard.
The government's role, therefore, is to ensure that the economic system operates without contradictions that would undermine the ability of Americans to live prosperously. To repeat Lincoln’s words again, “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.”
The constitutional framework as a non-contradictory legal system sets the stage for addressing tough policy challenges, including our debates over wages and social programs.
If we reject the premise that every American should be paid a decent wage for their labor because we judge that some jobs aren’t worthy of those wages, there’s another source of possible income for individual Americans: taxes paid by the American people.
I’m not going to outline an argument in support of social programs. I will say that if government leaders fail to fulfill their duty to regulate decent wages, individual Americans first need to be able to earn a living.
Obviously, there’s a failure in the system, because half of American families depend on social program support.
These social programs benefit the neediest Americans, and we love our countrymen. But social programs aren’t the preferred method for individuals to earn a living and pursue happiness.
Social program money doesn’t give individuals the dignity and pride of earning a living and supporting their families from their work. Government housing robs families of the opportunity to feel the accomplishment of buying a home. Buying groceries with food stamps or WIC vouchers results in Americans who feel shame at the checkout. Funneling money through the bureaucracy wastes the majority of it instead of ensuring it reaches families in need.
To be clear, many Americans earn good wages and don’t need social program support. America has never been more prosperous. Few of us have no clean water or access to electricity. The vast majority of Americans have never set foot on a dairy and still have butter for their toast. Many business owners pay good wages to all their workers.
The one hundred million Americans who receive benefits from social programs need help, but most of them don’t need social programs. They need to earn a decent wage from their jobs, regardless of their skill level or education.
Back to the law of non-contradiction.
We can’t support policies that allow businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.
When we fail to fulfill our duty to ensure the system works to pay all workers decent wages for any job, we perpetuate a system that incentivizes social programs.
That’s just the reality. We can’t stand on top of the mountain and stand on the beach at the same time.
May God bless the United States of America.
Aristotle, Abraham Lincoln, and Wages