Virtue Quest

Why are you looking at me that way? Haven't you ever met a man named "Hilaire"?

I’ve just finished reading Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State. His main argument is that Capitalism is an unstable economic structure which must, sooner or later, settle into a more stable economic structure. The two possibilities for stable structures are slavery and property, and the one we are rapidly descending toward is slavery.

I’m not 100% on board with his argument on the necessary development of capitalism, but I find that anyone who tries to predict the future is very lucky to get even one thing right, and he does a great job of describing the development of such systems as minimum wages, social security, and some dynamics between “labor” and “capital” that had not yet begun in 1912 when he published his book.

The very best part of the book is the beginning where Belloc defines his terms. And the best distinction he makes, or the one most eye-opening to me anyway, is the distinction between political and economic freedom.

Political and economic freedom

Political freedom is what we usually mean when we talk about, well, freedom in the political realm. (more…)

I had been hearing about the Christmas Tree bomber in Portland all weekend, and was very glad to finally hear somebody mention the word “entrapment.” But it’s not just Mohamed Osman Mohamud I’m concerned about.

I’m worried about an FBI team who contacts an isolated individual who’s failing to make contact with jihadist radicals, teaches him how to make a bomb, helps him to plan and carry out an attack, and chooses a large and public venue to arrest him.

I’m worried about an Attorney General who claims “that if Mohamud hadn’t come in contact with the FBI, he ‘would have made his plans tragically real.’”

And I’m worried about mass media outlets that just repeat the line that this is a plot that has been “thwarted” or “foiled.”

For the record, it sounds to me like this Mohamud fellow may actually have become a threat on his own someday. He very well may have warranted observation by the FBI. But the way the Bureau pursued this investigation sounds very much like entrapment for Mohamud and fear-mongering for the rest of us.

“Look!” says the FBI & co., “here’s a home-grown terrorist you should be afraid of! It could be anybody! What’s a little inappropriate pat-down compared to the risk of being bombed while lighting a Christmas Tree? What’s a little warrantless wiretapping or email surveillance next to, you know, a west coast 9-11?”

What would have been wrong with just watching this kid, and seeing what he does on his own? At least then, he might have actually led investigators to a real terrorist cell, and could have led to some genuine intelligence of real plots to commit terrorist acts. And, when arrested, he might have been guilty of a real crime.

As it is, he’s just become the solitary target of an FBI plot to … to what? boost their own ratings? I hope not. To foil and thwart terrorist attacks? Not very effectively.

I want good security and I want active intelligence gathering on terrorist activities. But that’s not what this was. At best, this was a colossal mistake. If anyone in the FBI is reading this, please, don’t make the same mistake again.

I mentioned a little while ago that I wanted to strike up a conversation with my elected officials in an attempt to be a better citizen. The first step, I think, is learning a bit about them. Since I’m not much of a politics wonk, this will take me some time. But I hope that, by January when the new terms of office begin, I’ll have an idea of who they are and what they stand for – and, therefore, what I want to say to them.

My mother, drunk or sober

Here in Washington State, we have a “Find Your Legislator” feature on the website, as well as contact info for our elected officials. I happen to live in north Seattle, which is Washington’s 46th Legislative District (for state offices) and 7th Congressional District (for federal offices). That means the people I’ll be looking up are: (more…)

You've got to love a man who loves his mother

So, as I mentioned in the comments below, I’m an economic and political ignoramus, and I’m essentially live-blogging my self-education. So, of course, Adam Smith’s classic The Wealth of Nations is on my reading list; I’m working through it now.

Now, I’ve been told that Smith isn’t quite the die-hard laissez faire 100% regulation free super-capitalist my mother warned me about. I’m advised that he’s quite a moral guy, and sees an important role for government regulation in the marketplace, but that those parts come later in the book. I’m happy to keep reading.

But there are a few major red flags popping up in the first few chapters, and I thought I’d mention them because they all have one thing in common: they put things ahead of people.

Unwarranted assumptions

Smith makes a number of assertions at the beginning of his work, (more…)

For me? Aw, you shouldn't have!

I had one of those “a-ha” moments over the weekend. I was thinking about words, as I often do, and I was trying to find a way to articulate the difference between recognizing life (or a friend or a privilege or whatever) as a gift and taking life for granted. And I realized, the phrases look roughly identical.

A grant, after all, is a kind of gift. It is something given to me by someone else.

So I started exploring whether there are any words we use for that sense of entitlement we call “taking something for granted” that don’t in fact refer to receiving something from someone else. (more…)

A gentleman – with a name like Donald P. Goodman III, he must be a gentleman! – over at The Distributist Review has a fine article on the idea of subsidiarity.

For the record, I’m very much of the “Subsidiarity means the right action taken by the right authority as close to the problem as possible” school. I think the “Subsidiarity = smaller government, but bigger private enterprise is okay” school misses the point. The point is, subsidiarity is a principle that guards against any kind of collectivization – public or private – in order to keep the focus of society where it belongs: on actual human beings.

Ah, if only it were that simple and clear-cut.

I’ve mentioned before some of the principles I wish were more prevalent in political conversation. Here’s the list again, for those who hate clicking on links:

• Common good
• Subsidiarity
• Interdependence, aka, Solidarity

Many more good things worth talking about certainly belong on the list, but this is as far as I’ve gotten in trying to articulate some essential political principles.

However, while I generally like to focus on the positive, it’s important to recognize the genuine evils out there which undermine any possibility of real human life, liberty, and community.

Recognizing evil

A quick reminder: evil is not any thing in itself. Evil is the distortion or destruction of something good. So when my anger starts rising up, I have to remind myself to look for the good that’s being distorted. I have to remind myself that whoever is committing or supporting evil is actually trying to accomplish something good, albeit in a twisted way.

In other words, (more…)

Classical virtue - very classy

I was talking with a friend this weekend, and she said that she was a little confused when she first visited my blog because it wasn’t clear what kind of virtue I was talking about. So I took another look at the page, and I realize that the words “classical” and “cardinal” are entirely missing from the page.

I’ll rectify that soon, but in the meantime I realized that it never hurts to take another look at the big picture.

The classical virtues

The main reason I’m writing this blog is as a kind of public self-improvement exercise. I’ve found that the classical philosophy of virtue describes my strengths, my faults, and my potential. It also gives a very practical structure to work on overcoming my weaknesses and to work toward my potential.

These virtues are traditionally grouped under the four “cardinal” virtues and the three “theological” virtues: (more…)

Land of the free? Home of the brave?

I’m trying to figure out who and what to vote for this November. I’m nowhere near being able to recommend particular candidates or ballot measures to other people, but I am getting closer to articulating some basic principles for making political decisions.

It seems to me that the American government has, for quite some time, been doing all sorts of things that a government has no business doing; meanwhile, it has neglected the very proper and necessary work of governing.

The purpose of government

It seems to me that government exists to defend and promote the common good of society. (more…)

Gossip is for the birds

The Harvard Business Review interviews Professor Joe Labianca about a study in which he found that gossip was neither counterproductive nor unprofessional.

This goes against conventional wisdom, and a number of managers have commented that the study is bosh. But it’s always good to give someone the benefit of the doubt till you know all the facts. So the first thing to ask is, what was the gossip they were looking at? How did they define it?

Prof. Labianca says:

Gossip is merely the exchange of information between two people about a third, absent person.

Now, given that definition, I can understand how he came to his findings. I doubt there are very many conversations that don’t, at some point, involve some absent person. I wonder if he included performance review discussions or anything said in the HR department as “gossip?”

In fact, what Prof. Labianca is talking about is a form of social networking (to use contemporary jargon), though he certainly will get more attention for calling it gossip. His findings indicate that people who engage in this sort of interaction are perceived as more influential, and also have a greater understanding of the social dynamics in the workplace. This seems to me about the same as saying that people who drink water quench their thirst.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. After all, one of the great benefits of science is that it allows us a way to question conventional wisdom, to challenge our assumptions, and therefore to get at the truth.

My only problem, really, is with the word “gossip” being used to describe this broad area of interactions.

The dirt on gossip

Words do matter. “Gossip” – a wonderful Old English word that comes from the word for a godparent – has held the meaning of idle or frivolous talk since the sixteenth century, and specifically the meaning of baseless rumor since 1811. It is that “baseless rumor” sense that gives the word a negative connotation, and rightly so. Spreading rumors about others is an attack on their dignity, and is simply unjust.

In other words, gossip is always “unprofessional” because the distinguishing feature is injustice. What turns a conversation from “sharing” to “gossip” is when someone tells some unfounded opinion or story about someone else. The basis of gossip is exactly prejudice, judging a person before (pre-) knowing the truth about them.

Is gossip good?

Even so, it would not surprise me that people who engage in gossip – even according to my more restricted definition – are seen as more influential, or that they have a better sense of the social dynamics of the workplace. They may, in a strictly economic sense, be more efficient workers.

Why? Because their focus is on the various relationships in the workplace. They may be speculating without basis, but the very fact that they spend time thinking such things through gives them an insight into what’s going on. It also gives other people the impression that they know what’s going on, and therefore have greater influence.

But this insight and influence, even if it is genuine, comes at the cost of their humanity. It requires a basic disrespect for the reputation and dignity of whomever they are gossiping about. In the long term, the attempt to make connections by gossiping actually leads to an inability to relate honestly with other people.

In short, even the claim of efficiency is groundless. Gossip simply is a bad habit, a vice. And the solution is to practice treating other people with greater respect and honor, just as you would want them to treat you.