The subheadline of TIME?s latest article on Abraham Lincoln proclaims: ?Born in poverty 200 years ago, the 16th president was a self-starter who believed the government had to step in when markets failed.?
Hmm. Let?s examine this a little more closely:
“The penniless beginner in the world,” he once explained, “labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him.” This steady, gradual advance, Lincoln insisted, is “the prosperous system, which opens the way for all ? gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all.” We know it as the American Dream, and it certainly worked for him. Beginning with nothing, Lincoln managed to educate himself, raise a family in comfort and subsidize his history-shaping political campaigns ? all thanks to that useful instrument, money.
How might this penniless beginner fare in a different system, say a welfare state? Given cradle-to-grave benefits, he would have little incentive to labor. Or worse, he would find that labor beyond a certain point would actually cost him money. He also might find himself unable to get a job because of a mandatory minimum wage that prevents an employer from hiring him and helping him to develop the productivity that could help him advance in the same manner as Mr. Lincoln advanced in the ?prosperous system.?
Lincoln had his faults ? including a love for a big, powerful national government ? but it doesn?t appear that he failed to see the superiority of an economic system based on personal initiative.
