Boetcker's "Ten Cannots"

William J. H. Boetcker (1873 – 1962) was an American religious leader and influential public speaker.

Born in Hamburg, Germany, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister soon after his arrival in the United States as a young adult. He quickly gained attention as an eloquent motivational speaker, and is often regarded today as the forerunner of such contemporary "success coaches" as Anthony Robbins.

An outspoken political conservative, Rev. Boetcker is perhaps best remembered for his authorship of a pamphlet entitled "The Ten Cannots"; originally published in 1916, it is often misattributed to Abraham Lincoln.

• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
• You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
• You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
• And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Above info from Wikipedia

H/T to Joyce Morrison

Comments

[TheReallyRightGuy]

Why not this as the Republican platform?

[Erasmussimo]

Would it be too liberal of me to point out that the purpose of law is to protect the weak from the strong? And if you DO protect the weak from the strong, how do you respond when the strong complain that you are weakening them by taking away their power?

[pete speer]

E,

Huh? Your comment was not liberal, it was stupid.

The "cannot" said nothing about taking away protection of the weak. But you liberals believe that it is a zero sum game. It is not. We do not want merely to protect them. The weak are helped to become stronger by the increasing the size of the pie.

That's the dynamic as opposed to the static approach.

[Erasmussimo]

Pete, allow me to remind you of just a few examples where "protecting the weak from the strong" necessarily "weakens the strong":

At the time Mr. Boetcker wrote his words, one of the ongoing controversies concerned the rights of workers to organize labor unions and hold strikes. As a conservative, Mr. Boetcker would surely have endorsed the standard position in those days that manufacturers, as owners of the factories, should be free to set whatever wages they chose, and free to fire anybody who attempted to organize workers for collective bargaining, and free to fire any workers who went on strike. After all, any constraints upon factory owners would surely have constituted "weakening the strong".

Unfortunately, there remained the problem that the factory owners, by controlling a large fraction of the demand for labor, had created a marketplace for labor that was highly distorted and disadvantageous to the suppliers of labor. Adam Smith would not have approved of this arrangement, because when any single actor controls a goodly share of the market, that actor is able to distort the market to his benefit. This is one reason why "free markets" are so necessary to a properly functioning market system.

So, Pete, do you oppose laws guaranteeing workers the right to organize labor unions without being fired for doing so?

Here's another example of how "protecting the weak from the strong" can end up "weakening the strong". Suppose that a wealthy businessman gives a Congressman $10 million. It's not for any special reason, the businessman merely thinks that the Congressman is a fine fellow who deserves the money. Suppose that, a few months later, the Congressman votes in favor of a government program that enriches the businessman by $100 million. Now, there's no evidence that the Congressman was bribed or even that the gift influenced his vote in any way. A law preventing the businessman from making his gift would be an infringement on that businessman's right to use his money in any way he sees fit. This law would clearly weaken the strong businessman, but it would also protect the weak people, who don't have $10 to give to the Congressman, from his using their tax money to the businessman's benefit. So, where do you stand on this issue, Pete: should we protect the weak or refrain from weakening the strong?

I could go on and on like this if you really want to argue your case.

[GB]

Citing wikipedia? Sweet! That's some intense journalism right there.

[David P. Graf]

GB,

Fran could just have easily cited the same list of points from the recently released book "Did Lincoln Own Slaves?" by Gerald J. Prokopowi (which is a fun read in my opinion). However, by referencing Wikipedia, she made it a lot easier for others to look it up on their own.

[TaxMeMore]

Eras, you put quotes around "protecting the weak from the strong" yet I don't see that phrase being said anywhere but by you. "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong" is not even remotely the same thing as "protecting the weak from the strong".

As for your examples, fair game, but let's look at the other side of unions also. Let's look at the unions where the union bosses play favorites with job assignments based on clout instead of ability. 19 year old building inspectors with daddy campaign contributing union bosses comes to mind when porches are falling all over killing people. Let's look at union rules/laws that force a person to join a union if they want a job without giving them a personal choice of joining a union. Let's look at organized crime's association with unions through history up until this minute. Unions are no better or worse than corporate CEOs. Everyone has the ability to be greedy.

It appears, Eras, you assume the union is always the weak and the employer is always the strong in your examples.

[Erasmussimo]

TaxMeMore, the original reference to that phrase was in my first post at 2:20 PM yesterday:

"Would it be too liberal of me to point out that the purpose of law is to protect the weak from the strong?"

It's a well-established concept. And your statement:

"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong" is not even remotely the same thing as "protecting the weak from the strong".

is in fact a repetition of my point that in fact the two desiderata are fundamentally in conflict.

Yes, unions have their own problems with corruption. That doesn't in any way detract from my point that weakening the strong is sometimes the only way to protect the weak from the strong.

[pete speer]

E.

You certainly balance an argument on the head of an unproven supposition

"Mr. Boetcker would surely have endorsed..."

And proceed from there to gross generalities, which are no argument at all against my basic statement, on which I stand.

[Erasmussimo]

Pete, my supposition is unproven but obvious to anybody knowledgeable of the history of the times. At the time of Mr. Boetcker's remarks, the idea that labor had a right to organize was considered just one step short of seditious. Only somebody on the far left would have supported laws guaranteeing workers the right to organize labor unions without being fired for doing so. The original article describes Mr. Boetcker as an "outspoken political conservative". Therefore it is trivially obvious that Mr. Boetcker would have opposed such legislation. My statement is well supported by history.