On Profit and Property

President Coolidge confronted the same impulse in his time to remove ownership and eradicate profit in the name of “equality” that is prevalent today. The egalitarianism of the French and Russian Revolutions, still lauded by those who were new to America, failed to produce the results of the earlier Revolution of 1776 not because of incompetence or inferior people. It was because the American Revolution was rooted in more ancient principles and timeless truths of work, law, ownership and reward. The experiment in discarding property and profit had been tried in America, in its earliest settlement by William Bradford and the brave souls who disembarked at Plymouth Rock in 1620. As Bradford records in his Journals, they nearly starved to death under that “communal” experiment. This trial-run in socialism was found incapable of producing the moral or material results which a system that protects ownership of property and profit for work done accomplishes whenever and wherever observed (“Of Plymouth Plantation” pp.115-6).

President Coolidge, well-aware of that experience among the pilgrims, knew of its value in whatever age one lives. In an address right before the 1924 election, he explains the wisdom of ownership and profit, “When service is performed, the individual performing it is entitled to the compensation for it. His creation becomes a part of himself. It is his property. To attempt to deal with persons or with property in a communistic or socialistic way is to deny what seems to me to be this plain fact. Liberty and equality require that equal compensation shall be paid for equal service to the individual who performs it. Socialism and communism cannot be reconciled with the principles which our institutions represent. They are entirely foreign, entirely un-American. We stand wholly committed to the policy that what the individual produces belongs entirely to him to be used by him for the benefit of himself, to provide for his own family and to enable him to serve his fellow men.” The notion that an individual has an entitlement to own the reward of his own effort, not the work of another is increasingly a foreign concept. It is no less valid a truth.

As Coolidge understood what seems lost to our day, the compensation of profit and ownership goes to the one who earns it. It is not the entitlement of the state to claim ownership of an individual’s property, redistributing to the idle in the name of “equality.” Such is an insult to the hard-working. The principle of service obligates a person to love his neighbor, providing from what he owns to help others. It is not the role of government to dispense favors with the property of individuals. As Coolidge would say again on other occasions, “There is just one condition on which men can secure employment and a living, nourishing, profitable wage, for whatever they contribute to the enterprise, be it labor or capital, and that condition is that someone make a profit by it…When you deny the right to profit, you deny the right of a reward to thrift and industry.”

On the Distribution of Wealth

Speaking at the Associated Industries Dinner in Boston on December 15, 1916, Calvin Coolidge, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts at the time, said, “It is our endeavor to extend equal blessings to all. It can be done approximately if we establish the correct standards. We are coming to see that we are dependent upon commercial and industrial prosperity, not only for the creation of wealth, but for the solving of the great problem of the distribution of wealth. There is just one condition on which men can secure employment and a living, nourishing, profitable wage, for whatever they contribute to the enterprise, be it labor or capital, and that condition is that some one make a profit by it. That is the sound basis for the distribution of wealth and the only one. It cannot be done by law, it cannot be done by public ownership, it cannot be done by socialism. When you deny the right to a profit you deny the right of a reward to thrift and industry.”

On “The Limitations of the Law”

It was on the occasion of the 45th meeting of the American Bar Association, that the Vice President of the United States rose to speak on August 10, 1922. As he prepared to explain here what law cannot do, none could have foreseen that almost a year to the day later he would be President. Known for writing all his own speeches, this one was no less the product of years of careful thought affirmed by his own twenty-four continuous years in public service, up to that time. He saw that law had limitations. When the national government is expected to encompass all decision-making, it will prove itself incapable of the task, however well-intentioned, well-supplied or well-led. Such is the result of ignoring the limits of law. There is no “magic” road to perfection by “nationalizing” morals through legislation. Besides, people cannot defer powers to Washington that they themselves do not possess, Coolidge would observe. That is the safeguard of federalism. Federalism limits responsibilities to those best able to handle them: local affairs belong to local citizens, states making their own decisions in statewide matters, and national government, defined and limited, making decisions through representatives of the people, while each respects their proper sphere of authority.

On a more basic level, the limits of law reside not in a denial of society’s growth and advancement but acknowledges the universal truth that law cannot do everything. It certainly cannot do all we would like it to do. As Coolidge would observe, “Real reform does not begin with a law, it ends with a law.” For the received standards of society — the “laws” they embrace — come not by government deciding such and such is so, but originates from the people themselves. In this way, Coolidge foresees the failure of every measure to make people conform to “laws” handed down to them rather than as the acknowledgment in law of long-practiced and accepted norms of sovereign citizens. As Coolidge would remind his listeners, the limits of what law can properly do should not be a cause to despair for the future. On the contrary, Coolidge, full of optimism, pointed ahead to the inexhaustible resourcefulness of engaged citizens. “It is time to supplement the appeal to law, which is limited, with an appeal to the spirit of the people, which is unlimited.” Solutions lie not in the halls of government offices but in the ingenuity, character and competent hands of informed citizens.