What’s Wrong with the World

In Notes From Underground Dostoevsky has his narrator say that the best definition of man is a being that goes about on two legs and is ungrateful. But this undeniable human tendency is countered by God's placing of an act of thanksgiving at the very heart of Christian worship.

Is a little too simplistic to say that in a world permeated by liberal sentiments, gratitude has been supplanted by a sense of entitlement?

What a beautiful and perfect true post (and it is probably beautiful because it is true). When I came back to the Church after being away for so long one of the first things I realized about myself is how selfish I had been all those years away from Christ -- and I mean selfish in all sorts of inter-personal little ways (e.g. not doing enough for my daughters and wife). And I think that the selfishness grew out of a sense of inflated ego and yes Alex, entitlement -- or as Jeff C. so eloquently puts it, I was too proud for gratitude, which meant I owed no one anything.

Now I keep coming back (gratefully!) to the Lord's prayer -- "thy will be done" -- not mine; and the Lord's will is to worship Him, give Him thanks and turn around and give to others. My life has been transformed, as Rob G says, by Christian worship.

Thanks again for the post.

I am convinced that the general run of liberals and libertarians are motivated by a fear of gratitude. Or put another way, a fear of obligation, for gratitude always imparts some degree of obligation, however small - even if only a prayer.

The idea seems so obvious, once one encounters it. Thanks.

The Russell Kirk comment linked in the article is a defense of aristocracy of birth. Mr. Kirk apparently believes that society has to have a few people who simply get all the goodies by being born into the right families and the rest of us should humble ourselves before them. If that is the "gratitude" spoken of in this post, I am quite happy not to have a drop of it. I am grateful to any number of people and institutions who helped me achieve what I have in life, but I think any society that demands that the rest of us feel gratitude toward people for no other reason than who their parents were is thoroughly wicked.

Karen, as usual, you miss the mark entirely. Apparently you read something early on that seemed aristocratic-friendly and then replaced the rest with your prejudices. Insofar as Kirk's remarks relate gratitude to aristocracy of birth, he implies a gentleman's sense of duty inspired by gratitude - not a gratitude of the masses for their aristocratic betters who "get all the goodies". (Do we also have an envy problem here?)

An excerpt from the link you obviously didn't read:

“One need not have been born to highest state to apprehend the unbought grace of life, or to benefit from it. This grace is not simply a glittering prize awarded to the clever and the industrious, nor is it designed exclusively for the enjoyment of a few persons in rich by the accident of birth. It is true that only a few men and women participate in this grace of life at its fullest, and that not all of these view are worthy of their good fortune. But in a diminished degree, the radiance of this unbought grace shines over every order in society, so long as it endures. Nor is the intensity of this grace necessarily proportionate to wealth and station, though it is more easily attained were possessions and position facilitate its enjoyment.

A poor man, if he has dignity, honesty, the respect of his neighbors, a realization of his duties, a love of the wisdom of his ancestors, and possibly some taste for knowledge or beauty, is rich in the unbought grace of life. Yet this man's enjoyment of such intangible grace is not simply the product of his own character: he is enabled to share in this grace because he has before him examples, some of them contemporary, some of them historical, of how a man ought to live with grace; and he is protected in his standards and his tastes by the fact that society still recognizes an ideal of life founded upon the principles and attainments of the masters of society in an earlier time. This man of obscure station, in short, is a gentleman, in some degree enjoying a gentleman’s prerogatives; but his tenure of this condition is dependent upon the survival of the ideal of a gentleman, and, ultimately, upon the survival of some grand gentleman to give an abstraction reality.…

Just such a general contempt and just such a popular infatuation are at work in our society, at present, with titanic power. If the influence of the gentleman is extinguished at the top of society, it will not long persist lower down; if the great multitude breaks loose from all restraints upon will and appetite, such a local arbiter of morality and taste will decline into an mere eccentric, doubtful of his own rectitude, at first barely tolerated by his neighbors, presently persecuted.”

But in a diminished degree, the radiance of this unbought grace shines over every order in society, so long as it endures. Nor is the intensity of this grace necessarily proportionate to wealth and station, though it is more easily attained were possessions and position facilitate its enjoyment.

If the influence of the gentleman is extinguished at the top of society, it will not long persist lower down;

Those are quotes from your own excerpt. Kirk believed people from rich families were better than everyone else, and that society should preserve such families from competition, by, for example, not imposing estate taxes. There is some pseudo-18th-century drivel about his conception of gratitude, but the import of the entire essay is that rich people deserve better treatment than everyone else does.

The quotes you highlight are quite simply and empirically true. The higher orders of society influence the lower far more powerfully than the reverse. What's to deny about that? It follows from this reality that preserving a virtuous elite (which Kirk never defines primarily in economic terms), motivated by gratitude, is necessary for the common good. Nothing Kirk has written implies that he "believed people from rich families were better than everyone else" or "deserve better treatment than everyone else does". It's hard to imagine a lazier, more brainlessly superficial, or more stridently ideological construction on his words.

"the import of the entire essay is that rich people deserve better treatment than everyone else does"

Unreal. Take a couple sentences out of context then use them to (mis)interpret the rest of the piece.

@JC: "For the libertarian, if the individual can and should 'pull himself up by his own bootstraps', then of course there is no one he needs to thank, no individual or group to whom he owes anything."

Oh, for goodness sake, Jeff. Do you really think that libertarians want people to do their best to fend for themselves *because* they want to spare themselves from any sense of indebtedness to others?

That's just so bizarre.

FYI: every libertarian I've ever met loves private charities just as much as he hates state entitlements. And one of the main advantages of private charities over state entitlements is, precisely, that they are more likely to encourage a sense of indebtedness to others.

This Robert Hutchins is the Great Books guy. Not so much the public face of it, but without Hutchins, no Adler.

It is not that entitlement replaces gratitude, but annihilates it.

My elderly Cuban friend has visited his former homeland once a year for thirty years. There are some precious and happy stories, and innumerable sad ones. But two years ago, for the first time, he appeared haunted on his return to America. When going to Cuba he brings small gifts, and buys food for all while he is there so that he may not be a burden to those who have nothing. For the first time, he said, he saw no one left who remembered what it meant to give thanks, to have gratitude. The State, even possessing nothing, is responsible for all needs and happiness, and people have forgotten the old and once powerful customs of Cuba. The revolution is over, Fidel has won.

James, I think when a sense of entitlement has annihilated gratitude, something more than a political revolution has taken place, or perhaps is symbolized. It's as though the informal 'terms of trade' by which a society operates - manners, customs, traditional mores, reciprocal obligations and all the rest of it - are in abeyance.

Oh, for goodness sake, Jeff. Do you really think that libertarians want people to do their best to fend for themselves *because* they want to spare themselves from any sense of indebtedness to others?

Well, yes, I do. The many libertarian-leaning personalities I've known over the years generally share the sentiment. It could be that I've listened to too much country music: "I ain't askin' nobody for nothin', if I can't get it on my own". "We won't take a dime if we ain't earned it. When it comes to weight, brother we pull our own." Or read too much Ayn Rand: "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." The libertarian books on my shelf - Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Murray, Hazlitt, Gilder - all preach a morality of individualism, independence, and radical self-interest. Anyone who devoured Reason magazine back in the 90s (I don't know what it's like today) came away with the idea that dependence upon others - especially economic dependence - is the most shameful of weaknesses. "Conservative" talk radio today largely re-enforces this view.

True - today's libertarian intelligentsia, those who staff the institutes and foundations, really play up the private charity angle. But that's a defensive posture in response to attacks on libertarianism's most salient (and un-palatable) defect. As an academic, could it be that you run in these circles primarily?

I do agree that it is, at least, theoretically possible to be a libertarian apart from the ignoble motive of fleeing from gratitude and obligation. I can think of several such persons, apart from yourself - all good Catholics of an intellectual bent - who have been sucked into the movement. But in my experience this posture is an anomaly.

Yeah, that's the thing about "intellectual" Catholics ... most are either libertarians (i.e. insane) or socialists (i.e. insaner).

Seems I recall that Jesus said something about how the rich and powerful lord it over others, but that his disciples would be servants of all.

The Chivken

Ilíon- odd you should mention that, John had a short musing on the front end of that notion, more broadly applied. ^.^

The desire to not owe anyone, to not impose, to not burden others is a perfectly good impulse-- and like any other good impulse, it can be distorted. There has to be a balance between demanding everything from others, and the false pride of being "totally self sufficient." (I say false because it's literally not possible--EVERYONE owes something to others, even before birth, let alone after being raised to the point of functioning independently.)
Finding where that middle ground lies is a challenge.

Heaven knows I drive my husband nuts by not asking for help in even little things unless I need it to do what is required. (Kit is slowly helping me get over part of that, since there are few things more adorable than a toddler "helping". I'll probably never be as good about asking for help as I probably should be.)

I agree with Foxfier. I think it's not a matter of not wanting to be grateful if one wants to bear one's own burdens to a large extent and not to drag on others. There can be a real courtesy in that. There is a kind of grace in it--one could say that the ideal person in this regard would work very hard to take care of himself and might be thought to be "fiercely independent," would at least have admirably little patience with petty and interfering bureaucracy and the entitlement mindset encouraged by government handouts, but at the same time would be fiercely loyal and grateful to those who helped him personally and would be able to accept with grace help that he truly needed when his own resources failed him at various points in life. The virtues of the "libertarian-minded" need to be fused with the virtues of the gracious and grateful Christian gentleman. A tall task, but I think a legitimate ideal. I imagine some of us know elderly people who fill the bill pretty well. Worked hard all their lives and took care of themselves but were willing and grateful to accept the help of their children and do so now even more with grace and love.

Thanks for the props, Foxfier, but Hube wrote that article on my site.

Anyway, being the Christian Conservative I am, and experiencing charity from the giving and receiving side (that is, actually handing my food to the "down on their luck" and actually being the "down on their luck" that someone handed food to), there is a lot of shame that goes with the gratitude. I could see it in their faces and I could feel it in the pit of my stomach.

(It would be less shameful if it just "appeared" on the doorstep. That whole "face to face" thing is the kicker, I think. But then the gratitude wouldn't exist.)

(It would be less shameful if it just "appeared" on the doorstep. That whole "face to face" thing is the kicker, I think. But then the gratitude wouldn't exist.)

I think gratitude is still possible in anonymity, but yes, it definitely helps to have faces and names - details of specifically who has done what for you. But then again, the Christian giver will usually make some effort to minimize any shame experienced by the recipient, and anonymity helps in that regard.

Just to be perfectly clear: it isn't my own position that state involvement in relief for the poor and needy eliminates the possibility of gratitude. I've known recipients of such relief who considered it (quite rightly) as from the very hand of God. I regard the medicare and SSI relief for members of my own family as from the hand of God (as it would be from any other source).

Despite some common goals and means, there is a difference between a Christian State that supplements private and ecclesiastical charity, and a cradle-to-grave secular Nanny State that creates an entitlement mentality in the population - an important difference that needs to be fleshed out in detail. The system we have is largely a function of the kind of society we want. The former makes poverty, sickness, and death the concern of everyone throughout their lives; the latter tucks it away and promises most of us a comfortable middle-class existence without being overly bothered by such unpleasantness.

[T]he Christian giver will usually make some effort to minimize any shame experienced by the recipient[.]

Here's the thing with that, at least from my experience: If you've never "been there" you don't really know. There's a naivete involved with giving to the downtrodden. People who give to the downtrodden most likely have never been, so they don't know the psychological aspects involved. I didn't. Hey, I was giving a Thanksgiving Dinner to families that needed help. How was I to know, never going through their ordeal, that it would bring pain to their souls?

I left a couple of the houses totally confused. They needed the help and they thanked me for the help. But their facial expressions and their body language suggested they wanted me off their front porch and fast (but not in a hateful manner).

You don't know until you walk a mile in their moccasins. And you can't prepare for it unless you know. And now that I've been several miles in those moccasins, I still don't know how to properly prepare for it.

I have often had the experience of being approached on the sidewalk by people asking for money. I have seen a lot of different responses ranging from a gleeful gratitude to an almost cunning shamefulness.

I was once having a talk with a friend on the steps of a Church when we were approached by a well-dressed man claiming that his car had run out of gas and that he needed some money to buy some. This is a well-known tactic used by either con-men or people too ashamed to admit they need help. He sounded suspicious, but I told him that if he really needed the help, I would give him some money, but to consider where he was. I told him that God was watching so he had better really need the help. My friend and I both thought it might be a con and I think we decided to pray for the man. Well he was arrested later that week. I sometimes wonder if he has ever thought about that day.

On the other hand, I used to see a man on campus who would ask me money for food almost every few days. I didn't have much, myself, but I gave what I could. He kept telling me that he was looking for work. One day, he approached me with a smile on his face and told me that he had finally gotten a job at the university hospital.

Two different reactions, but they say a lot about the first Beatitude: blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God. The word, ptochos, is used in the original Greek and it carries with it the connotation of destitution - being poor in spirit is a genuine inability to help oneself.

St. Thomas has this to say, in part, about almsgiving (ST. Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 32, article 5 - Whether Almsgiving is a matter of Precept):

On the contrary, No man is punished eternally for omitting to do what is not a matter of precept. But some are punished eternally for omitting to give alms, as is clear from Matthew 25:41-43. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept.

I answer that, As love of our neighbor is a matter of precept, whatever is a necessary condition to the love of our neighbor is a matter of precept also. Now the love of our neighbor requires that not only should we be our neighbor's well-wishers, but also his well-doers, according to 1 John 3:18: "Let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth." And in order to be a person's well-wisher and well-doer, we ought to succor his needs: this is done by almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept.

Since, however, precepts are about acts of virtue, it follows that all almsgiving must be a matter of precept, in so far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far as it is demanded by right reason. Now right reason demands that we should take into consideration something on the part of the giver, and something on the part of the recipient. On the part of the giver, it must be noted that he should give of his surplus, according to Luke 11:41: "That which remaineth, give alms." This surplus is to be taken in reference not only to himself, so as to denote what is unnecessary to the individual, but also in reference to those of whom he has charge (in which case we have the expression "necessary to the person" [The official necessities of a person in position] taking the word "person" as expressive of dignity). Because each one must first of all look after himself and then after those over whom he has charge, and afterwards with what remains relieve the needs of others. Thus nature first, by its nutritive power, takes what it requires for the upkeep of one's own body, and afterwards yields the residue for the formation of another by the power of generation.

On the part of the recipient it is requisite that he should be in need, else there would be no reason for giving him alms: yet since it is not possible for one individual to relieve the needs of all, we are not bound to relieve all who are in need, but only those who could not be succored if we not did succor them. For in such cases the words of Ambrose apply, "Feed him that dies of hunger: if thou hast not fed him, thou hast slain him" [Cf. Canon Pasce, dist. lxxxvi, whence the words, as quoted, are taken]. Accordingly we are bound to give alms of our surplus, as also to give alms to one whose need is extreme: otherwise almsgiving, like any other greater good, is a matter of counsel.

The Chicken

And now that I've been several miles in those moccasins, I still don't know how to properly prepare for it.

You don't. Unfortunately, people sometimes respond to help by anger because they feel it to be a sign of weakness or incapacity on their part to accept charity. No, strike that. The thing is, they feel the anger because they don't want to feel weak or incapacitated (or at least acknowledge it). They want, desperately, to be in control. They are grateful for the help, but still feel that their situation is somehow an injustice. They feel that if they had just been able to work harder or had better luck, they wouldn't be in this situation. They want to rail against fortune.

Well, guess what, they aren't in control. Recognizing that is the first step in becoming humble. I was never so happy as when I knew I was weak. There is a difference between being weak but willing to do what one can and weak, but thinking one could be strong, if only. Life is fair only in God's sight and until we can see as he sees, we must always be hesitant to say that we have been treated unjustly. I encounter this on a daily basis with some of my medical oddities. My choice is to either rail against the unfairness of it all, or offer up the suffering in union with Christ's suffering on the Cross. I used to be much better at offering things up, but as I have gotten more caught up in the world, I have become angrier (of course, some of that is probably due to nature of the condition - many people with angiomas are grouchier because of the trauma).

In any case, no matter how independent you want to be, sooner or later life will test you to make sure that your desire for independence is really based on your love for God and others and not your love for self. Ultimately, if one loses everything, except God's love, what has one really lost, seriously? If one has gained everything, but loses his soul, what has one gained?

There is a time to gain and a time to lose. Peace comes from knowing what time it is.

That being said, Dr. Bell certainly did not see deeply enough into Hutchin's character, in my opinion, given the limited data at hand (I don't want to judge the situation too much because I wasn't there when it happened and cannot know many of the nuances involved). Hutchins had the capacity to work and did not need charity. Dr. Bell was trying to make the man falsely humble, it seems to me. This is a form of abuse, in my opinion, on Dr. Bell's part. Bell, if he knew anything about life, must have known that Hutchins must one day be obligated to another (heck, if only in marriage, rightly done, or the natural onset of aging). He needn't have tested him. There is a difference between being stiff-necked and being capable. Being stiff-necked means, as Einstein once remarked, "doing the same thing, over and over and expecting a different result." Being capable means knowing what one can do. Succeed or fail, solitary self-reliance has always been a part of the American inheritance from the British. It is a pity that Dr. Bell did not take the chance to let Hutchins try to make his way through Law school. This is British class snobbery, in my opinion. The rich don't need to work?? He has, literally, made Hitchens damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. This is abuse and I take away a vastly different moral than the writer of this story intended. I wonder who the pride person was: Hutchins for wanting to do things his way, or the Canon who wanted Hutchins to do things his way?

The Chicken

The other thing about the Bell story, related to what Chicken says, is this: I think it's very healthy to want to avoid monetary debt. Very healthy indeed. H's statement about not wanting to be beholden to others could have been an expression of this healthy attitude. Bell encourages him to take a monetary loan rather than earn his way through law school and seems to judge him proud if he prefers to earn his way and pay as he goes. I find this troubling--as though going into monetary debt is a sign of a right spiritual state! Not a good criterion. Now, if he'd just said that he probably wouldn't make a good teacher because he didn't love the subject, that would be an entirely different criticism.

Succeed or fail, solitary self-reliance has always been a part of the American inheritance from the British.

Right, and it isn't in itself a bad thing. As Chicken says, if the motive is concern not to impose upon others, that isn't an ignoble motive. And I think an abhorrence of debt is a part of the legitimate desire to keep one's affairs in order, not to get in over one's head, and to be well within the boundaries of what one can handle so as to avoid becoming a burden on others or defaulting on one's creditors. This is especially so in the case of a "person-recourse loan" such as a loan for school without concrete collateral. And the anxiety about the debt would be all the greater if he'd made use of his father's name and appealed to his father's friends. It would then be his father's "credit" that H would be expending with the possibility of straining or harming his father's friends if he could not pay back the loan. All legitimate things to want to stay well clear of.

@JC: If the average country-music listener believes in pulling his own weight, then more power to him, I'd say. Do you disagree?

Look: obviously, most libertarians think that, *prima facie*, all else being equal, independence & self-reliance are better than dependence & reliance on others. Again, do you disagree?

But why do they think that? Is it really because they're "too proud for gratitude," or that they're "fleeing from gratitude and obligation?" It's when you make *that* claim that, IMHO, you run right off the rails. Believe me - I've read my fair share of the various "libertarian" authors you mention, yet somehow I've missed the passages where they inveigh against these things.

But since you insist that this is a besetting sin of every "libertarian" from Ayn Rand [?] to Milton Friedman to George Gilder [???], I assume that you'll find it easy to set me straight by providing some actual quotes, from some of these worthies, wherein they object in any way whatsoever to a sense of gratitude &/or obligation to others, whenever it's due.

"...the Christian giver will usually make some effort to minimize any shame experienced by the recipient, and anonymity helps in that regard..."

Well, hmmm...depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

In some cases, people find themselves in need of charity through no fault of their own. E.g., they fall victim to, say, a tsunami, or a sudden plague, or a traffic accident. In such cases, what you say makes sense.

But in other cases, people suffer the predictable consequences of their own folly. E.g., a habitual drunkard succumbs to cirrhosis of the liver, a "porn-star" gets himself infected with AIDS, a foolish real-estate speculator finds himself underwater...

Don't you think that in cases like these charity ought to come with a big dose of shaming attached?

p.s. - this, from Lydia,is just exactly right:

"...the ideal person in this regard would work very hard to take care of himself and might be thought to be 'fiercely independent,' would at least have admirably little patience with petty and interfering bureaucracy and the entitlement mindset encouraged by government handouts, but at the same time would be fiercely loyal and grateful to those who helped him personally and would be able to accept with grace help that he truly needed when his own resources failed him at various points in life."

If that's not *my* libertarian ideal, then I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, people sometimes respond to help by anger because they feel it to be a sign of weakness or incapacity on their part to accept charity. No, strike that. The thing is, they feel the anger because they don't want to feel weak or incapacitated (or at least acknowledge it). They want, desperately, to be in control. They are grateful for the help, but still feel that their situation is somehow an injustice. They feel that if they had just been able to work harder or had better luck, they wouldn't be in this situation. They want to rail against fortune.

Actually, that's not it at all. At least not for me. I never felt anger when people were bringing food to me. I didn't even feel anger when those people decided to teach their children about charity by having their children deliver me the food. I felt a great deal of shame, even moreso when the children were the deliverers. What a terrible thing to do to a fully-grown man! I could've died from the shame of accepting food from young children.

Anger? No. Shame and guilt for my predicament? Yes. Even greater shame that I involved children in giving me hand-outs? Absolutely. But no anger whatsoever.

Again, you will never understand until you walk a mile in those moccasins. And I hope you never have to walk that mile.

John, I have not walked in those moccasins, but I understand. Not by acquaintance, but I think what you've described is how I've imagined it would be. People that experience a lack of any type that others commonly have seem to know that most people often project onto them their own fears, and even if not they experience discomfort with the lacking person, which only increases the alienation.

The desire to be in control is always a temptation for anyone, rich and poor, but control can usually be satisfied within the sphere of influences one has, however small. I'm not persuaded that the shame experienced is primarily about control.

Blow, blow, thou winter wind
Thou art not so unkind
As man's ingratitude;
Thy tooth is not so keen,
Because thou art not seen,
Although thy breath be rude.

Freeze, freeze thou bitter sky,
That does not bite so nigh
As benefits forgot:
Though thou the waters warp,
Thy sting is not so sharp
As a friend remembered not.

While it's a commonplace that Americans place (or used to place) a very high value on self-reliance, independence, individual enterprise, and so on, there's also the tradition of thanksgiving to be accounted for. There's no such thing as absolute self-sufficiency.

I think myself that the tradition of self-reliance and independence goes hand-in-hand with the tradition of Thanksgiving. There's a certain type of person--I don't claim to be this kind of person--who has all of these things. A concrete instance would be the frontiersman type who is very independent but also very generous, who thanks his neighbors for their help in tough times and who also helps them without thinking twice about it, and who leads his family in giving thanks to God Almighty. It's a highly specific "type," and maybe there aren't a lot of them left anymore. I myself wouldn't know how to milk a cow or build a barn, so the concrete specifics will have to be changed for those of us in the information age, but that combination of independence, generosity, and thankfulness is a character type devoutly to be wished and sought.

Another chance to get my Rand spite on. Sure, why not?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/duty.html

"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality.” (John Galt)

The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man's first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.” (Roark)

Before the thread moves too far into whether someone deserves charity or not, I would emphasize the crucial statement in the main post about unmerited favor:

By contrast, the authentic conservative tradition in the West, owing to its Christian roots, leaves room for gratuitous, unmerited favor - what Burke named and Kirk championed "the unbought grace of life".

Not even the most rugged pioneer believed that taming his tiny piece of the wilderness could be done without incurring obligations. Hard work and luck are not enough for success in any worthwhile human enterprise; whether we acknowledge it or not, we often depend on the hidden, indirect, and perhaps disinterested help of others and the blessing of God.

We should be grateful for infrastructures which took generations to build with sweat and taxes. The attitude expressed by "Don't do me any favours, pal" is ugly and uncharitable.

We should be grateful for infrastructures which took generations to build with sweat and taxes.

I'm not certain I agree with this statement. The way I read it, I strongly disagree, but I've read things wrong before.

Prior to FDR's creation of Welfare and whatever else unconstitutional, communities banded together to help each other up, and in a much more efficient manner. Now that we have the transgenerational Welfare entitled poverty prison, the communities have lost much of their responsibilities to their less fortunate and the less fortunate are more entitled than the middle class. It shouldn't be this way.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help." It's a trap, man, it's a trap.

@JC: If the average country-music listener believes in pulling his own weight, then more power to him, I'd say. Do you disagree?

Colloquially, the expression has its place. Better, though, to pull as much weight as one can - to minimize the burdens of others. More problematic is the sentiment "we won't take a dime if we ain't earned it", first because it is full of ignorance as to how much one has that is unearned, and second because the man who "won't take a dime" if he "ain't earned it" will certainly never give a dime without belief that the recipient has "earned it", or if he does give, his gift will come with a healthy measure of contempt.

Look: obviously, most libertarians think that, *prima facie*, all else being equal, independence & self-reliance are better than dependence & reliance on others. Again, do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. Ten years ago I would have said "amen". But now, with a wife and five children and a thoroughly interdependent life, it's hard to even imagine what "self reliance" or "independence" looks like. Jeremiah Johnson, maybe? Sweet. Granted, there's a colloquial sense in which independence just means doing as much for oneself as possible so as to minimize the burdens of others - a good and worthy goal - but this "independence" comes only in degrees, and in fact cannot be accomplished alone. A thoroughgoing independence is hardly human, much less civilized, for man is civilized only insofar as he serves.

But since you insist that this is a besetting sin of every "libertarian" from Ayn Rand [?] to Milton Friedman to George Gilder [???], I assume that you'll find it easy to set me straight by providing some actual quotes, from some of these worthies, wherein they object in any way whatsoever to a sense of gratitude &/or obligation to others, whenever it's due.

I'm not about comb through my books looking for quotes, and I doubt I would find anything that openly supports what amounts to an amateur psychological diagnosis on my part. You may have come across a study of libertarians and their moral perspectives ( http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/20/the-science-of-libertarian-mor ), and the results certainly are consistent with a morality that frowns on gratitude:

Taking various measures into account, the researchers report that libertarians “score high on individualism, low on collectivism, and low on all other traits that involved bonding with, loving, or feeling a sense of common identity with others.”

Anyway, I dusted off my volume of Mises' Human Action last night, and within minutes stumbled upon a passage that speaks to the topic at hand. Didn't even need the index. For context, see Chapter XXXV, section 2, in which Mises discusses the problem of poverty, private charity, and welfare in a capitalist economy. He writes:

The second defect charged to the charity system is that it is charity and compassion only. The indigent has no legal claim to the kindness shown to him. He depends on the mercy of benevolent people, on the feelings of tenderness which his distress arouses. What he receives is a voluntary gift for which he must be grateful. To be an almsman is shameful and humiliating. It is an unbearable condition for a self-respecting man.

These complaints are justified. Such shortcomings do indeed inhere in all kinds of charity. It is a system that corrupts both givers and receivers. It makes the former self-righteous and the latter submissive and cringing. However, it is only the mentality of a capitalist environment that makes people feel the indignity of giving and receiving alms. Outside the field of the cash nexus and of deals transacted between buyers and sellers in a purely businesslike manner, all interhuman relations are tainted by the same failing ...

To summarize, the gratitude expected of one who receives alms is placed squarely in the context of shame and humiliation. What is more - and this is a startling admission - Mises explains that capitalism itself makes receiving alms into something degrading. Clearly, then, such humiliating "gratitude" is to be avoided at all costs in a capitalist environment. Mises then goes on to contrast this scenario with pre-capitalistic society, in which charitable acts were infused with a natural grace that did not impart shame. He disapproves with a sneer, of course, but reading between the lines one finds a refreshing honesty about it:

Feudal society was founded on acts of grace and on the gratitude of those favored. The mighty overlord bestowed a benefit upon the vassal and the latter owed him personal fidelity. Conditions were human insofar as the subordinates had to kiss their superiors' hands and show allegiance to them. In a feudal environment the element of grace inherent in charitable acts did not give offense. It agreed with the generally accepted ideology and practice. It is only in the setting of a society based entirely upon contractual bonds that the idea emerged of giving to the indigent a legal claim, an actionable title to sustenance against society.

That sums it up rather nicely. Mises and the libertarians want to give us a society based entirely upon contractual bonds: the only obligations are contractual obligations. A contract capitalist society introduces shame and humiliation into the context of charitable acts, of giving and receiving alms, because benefits are received apart from a market exchange which alone determines value. In order to mitigate this indignity, it is demanded that the dispossessed have a legal claim against society for their material needs - entitlements! So we learn from Mises himself how capitalism leads directly and inexorably to a system of entitlements, to the liberal welfare state, and to the erosion of gratitude and obligation.

But in other cases, people suffer the predictable consequences of their own folly. E.g., a habitual drunkard succumbs to cirrhosis of the liver, a "porn-star" gets himself infected with AIDS, a foolish real-estate speculator finds himself underwater...

Don't you think that in cases like these charity ought to come with a big dose of shaming attached?

I don't know, I tend to think that AIDS and cirrhosis of the liver are pretty thorough for shaming purposes. Why pile it on? I don't approve of shaming lung cancer victims for their smoking either. Besides, the business of shaming others, especially in the depths of their distress, can't be good for the soul.

But I take your point, Steve. There is a place for public shame and some of this needs to come back. It just seems to me that the time for shaming promiscuity, drunkenness, and other misbehavior is before calamity strikes. Once the damage is done, it's time for mercy.

JC: OK, so you think that, *prima facie*, all else being equal, it's *dependence & reliance on others* that is better than *independence & self-reliance*...

Now that's hard core, neo-medievalist conservatism.

Which has its charm.

John Hitchcock writes:

Prior to FDR's creation of Welfare and whatever else unconstitutional, communities banded together to help each other up, and in a much more efficient manner. Now that we have the transgenerational Welfare entitled poverty prison, the communities have lost much of their responsibilities to their less fortunate and the less fortunate are more entitled than the middle class. It shouldn't be this way.

Thinking about 'infrastructures' as simply a euphemism for welfare benefits imposes a rather narrow view of them.

What I had in mind were the innumerable material goods we've inherited - roads, ports, bridges, public buildings and parks, etc., etc. The 'immaterial' goods would include institutions such as those that provide universal education, health care, the justice system, and so on.

These things didn't grow organically. They had to be bought and paid for by people who came before us with a lot less to spare than we have. I see no reason not to be grateful - though I admit it's going to be a theoretical and impersonal gratitude.

I also admit that we, the taxpayers, continue to subsidize many of these goods for people who enjoy them but don't deserve to. That's how the principle of mutuality often plays out in modern times. How could the mutual obligations and common interests that bonded the communities of, let's say, frontier America, do the same job in a complex society with a huge population of many millions to consider?

On 'hand outs': I don't mind paying my share of the cost of providing a safety net for people who've fallen on hard times. But I do object when that safety net has been transformed into a feather bed which the idle and feckless refuse to get out of.

*prima facie*, all else being equal, it's *dependence & reliance on others* that is better than *independence & self-reliance*...

Change "dependence" to "interdependence" - where "interdependence" always implies some significant measure of dependence - and what you have in the former is simply descriptive of unchangeable human reality. Attempts to deny or change that reality always leads to a bad end. If acknowledging that is "medieval" then fetch me my suit of armor, vassals!

I tend to agree with Lydia and the Masked Chicken. While I don't mean to doubt the veracity of Dr. Bell, let alone of the great Dr. Kirk in his secondhand account, I wish I had actually witnessed the incident in question. It seems as if Kirk added unproven descriptive statements - "arrogant head held high," "sustained by much self-assurance," to sentences that one could easily imagine being spoken in a very different style.

P.S. According to Wikipedia, once actually at Yale Law School, Hutchins "did not enjoy the same level of financial support [as wealthier students] and... worked menial jobs for up to six hours per day to cover living expenses," so it seems as if he defied Dr. Bell's advice. Good for him, in my opinion (based on the limited data available).

A contract capitalist society introduces shame and humiliation into the context of charitable acts, of giving and receiving alms, because benefits are received apart from a market exchange which alone determines value. In order to mitigate this indignity, it is demanded that the dispossessed have a legal claim against society for their material needs - entitlements! So we learn from Mises himself how capitalism leads directly and inexorably to a system of entitlements, to the liberal welfare state, and to the erosion of gratitude and obligation.

It would be interesting to try to distinguish "contract capitalist societies" from other capitalist societies. I honestly don't know what you mean. It is easily shown how small pre-industrial families engaged in work of the day were indeed practicing a robust form of capitalism. And here is a quote from Peter Laslet, in "The World We Have Lost" that I think is true and germane to the discussion.

“Capitalism, then, is an incomplete description and historians’ language is marked by many other incomplete descriptions too … The historical distortions which come about from the uncritical use of ‘capitalism’ … have arisen from an obliquity which we an only now begin to correct. With the ‘capitalism changed the world’ way of thinking goes a division of history into the ancient, feudal, and bourgeois eras or stages. But the facts of the contrast which has to be drawn between the world we have lost and the world we now inhabit tends to make all such divisions into subdivisions. The time has now come to divide our European past in a simpler way with industrialization as the point of critical change.”

Woot: if all JC is trying to do here is to point out the bloody obvious - i.e., that human beings are highly interdependent, then fine.

I thought he was claiming something quite a bit more radical than that - i.e., that there's something wrong with normal aspirations to "pull one's own weight," to "stand on one's own two feet," etc.

And I also thought he was claiming that there's a big element within mainstream libertarian/conservative thought that denies &/or denounces our workaday interdependence with others.

Both claims continue to strike me as pretty much totally crazy.

JC - thanks for getting me to read von Mises, for the first time.

I found a complete PDF of *Human Action* here. Chapter XXXV, section 2 is, indeed, quite interesting.

But I just don't see him objecting, here, in any way whatsoever, to a sense of gratitude &/or obligation to others, whenever it's due - which is, after all, what I was asking about.

Moreover - I assume you've noticed that, in this passage, von Mises is *defending* what he calls the "charity system" against objections from those who urge state-funded entitlements, while making the odd admission or two against interest?

It would be interesting to try to parse out "normal aspirations to pull one's own weight," etc.

I think we might profitably think in terms of the financial independence, at least for basic and necessary things, of nuclear family units. So--a breadwinner for the family, or, if necessary (though I think it unfortunate when necessary), more than one breadwinner. The non-breadwinners have their role in the economy of the family. As the children grow to adulthood, and especially after they have finished college or a comparable span of transitional years, it is best if they either achieve individual financial independence for these basic needs or (by marriage) become part of another nuclear family unit that has this basic financial independence.

Now, this allows space for non-working mothers. They are not individually economically independent but do a much-needed job--raising and teaching children, keeping the home--within the economy of a family that does have sufficient breadwinning going on to keep itself afloat.

We could finesse still further to talk about unusual cases in which adult children are occupied full-time in taking care of elderly parents and hence are unable to achieve or retain their own economic independence because they are too busy doing something within the nuclear family unit that simply has to be done. These cases, however, do raise real problem potential on the horizon. Whatever life insurance the parents might have will almost certainly be insufficient to care for an adult daughter after the parents' death for the rest of her life, so the adult daughter who has never worked outside the home may find herself in a pickle after her parents' death, and it would behoove both her and her parents to try to do something about this before it is too late. Spouses at least are usually of roughly the same generation, so the same considerations do not arise with the same urgency.

Now, I think that this sort of basic ability to support one's family or useful and necessary membership in a self-supporting family is what most people think of when they talk about "standing on one's feet." And this approach also has room for a lot of the interdependence that people have and should have.

I would venture to say, at the risk of offending, that it's a darned shame if someone can't have at least this degree of independence. The impossibility of it may be a result of a lot of things that aren't the person's fault. In the extreme case, we could be talking about someone disabled who must be cared for all his life by his family without being able to have a productive adult role in the family economy. Okay, fine. We then love that person and take care of that person and often learn a great deal from him. But his state is in a real sense a privation and a sadness. Our deep love for the disabled shouldn't make us pretend that they are not, in fact, disabled.

In other cases, a man simply loses a job or has a terrible time finding one no matter how hard he looks. There are all sorts of things that _can_ happen, and in today's economy this is especially true. However, it's _too bad_ when these things are the case. It would be _better_ if they weren't, and it's _good_ for people to try to find ways around and over them.

What I think we certainly should not do, especially in raising our children, is to teach them to think of a lack of even basic familial financial independence of this sort as something simply to be expected long-term. Heaven knows, the way things are today, it's hard enough to get young men to "launch." There are plenty of things to discourage them, many very real and depressing considerations. The last thing they need is for their parents to teach them that having themselves or their families supported by the state or by charity for their basic needs for the whole of their lives is _perfectly normal_ and not in the least an unfortunate outcome.

"Outside the field of the cash nexus and of deals transacted between buyers and sellers in a purely businesslike manner, all interhuman relations are tainted by the same failing"

The feeling of independence in a cash-based economy is always to one degree or another illusory since, as someone once wisely put it, you can't eat money. Even the independently wealthy are not really independent.

"Mises explains that capitalism itself makes receiving alms into something degrading."

When greed is recast as self-interest, it only stands to reason that charity will likewise be recast as degradation. The vice has become a virtue, and the virtue a liability. Where is the place for gratitude if everything is earned?

When greed is recast as self-interest, it only stands to reason that charity will likewise be recast as degradation. The vice has become a virtue, and the virtue a liability. Where is the place for gratitude if everything is earned?

Au contraire, when self-interest is recast as greed, charity will be degraded and a false version of altruism will be idealistically sought after in its place. The idea that self-interest has nothing to do with charity is a perverted understanding of charity. God made man the way he is for a reason, and even vices are the root of virtues if guided and developed. Where is the place for charity if self-interest is misunderstood?

C. S. Lewis and Dallas Willard both highlighted this truth. Willard has spoken of how people seem to feel guilty praying when they see themselves with much of a personal interest in the outcome, so (other than their families) many only feel comfortable praying for the distant and abstract in which their personal self-interest is safely diminished. In my experience there's a lot of truth to that.

Anybody with any sense knows that everything isn't earned. Surely that is one thing in life decent people learn. Rob, if you want to say a particular form of government unleashed self-interest in some excessive or perverted form, and you know you do, then you should supply an argument for this rather than simply assuming its truth with sophistic aphorisms. They don't work.

I think we might profitably think in terms of the financial independence, at least for basic and necessary things, of nuclear family units.

Lydia, while I know what you mean by "financial independence" in the context of a nuclear family or breadwinner, I regret that we're kind of stuck with this language and object to the unspoken assumptions usually hidden behind the paradigm.

The primacy of "independence" in the American lexicon is unconsciously limiting. It is thought that independence is enough. If I have become independent and do not burden anyone in a material way, then I have done my part, I have arrived, I am now fully emancipated, I am complete as a person. That is the standard thinking of everyone across the spectrum in a capitalist economy - left, right and center. What are the social effects of this primacy? One effect is the minimizing of other obligations. Few think of their financial obligations as ever going beyond their own independence. If the financially independent choose to pursue financial goals beyond their own self-sufficiency, to relieve others in their dependence and need, that is merely icing on the cake for which they deserve heaps of praise, but it is no obligation at all. On the more tragic side of it, it also means suicide, depression, substance abuse and other pathologies among those who fall short of independence. This is especially true among men who have lost their jobs and homes, or who are facing bankruptcy and economic hardship for the first time as adults. For many, their whole identities are wrapped up in financial independence, which positions itself as the sum total of American manhood (and now, to spread the joy, womanhood).

That Americans instinctively reduce "independence" to financial or economic terms is also lamentable. And in my opinion it is strikingly at odds with a Christian worldview. Take the highest possible vocation of a Christian: contemplative religious life. It is the very opposite of independence. Its chief characteristic is communion: first with God, second with one's religious house, third with the Church. Its chief concern is the honor of God and the salvation of souls. The contemplative does not "earn" his keep: he works, it is true, but it is unlikely that he "carries his own weight" or "stands on his own two feet" in strictly economic terms. He depends on God, on his brothers, and on his benefactors for everything. It's set up that way for a reason: to place a check on pride. And yet, and yet ... the contemplative doesn't know it, but he carries the world on his shoulders by his charity and prayers. There is no place more hospitable than a good religious house full of holy monks. Even more than their prayers for you - prayers from which you benefit but do not know anything about - they will give you their last loaf and their last cloak, and wait upon God to replace them. They receive beggars and are not ashamed to beg themselves. They know better than anyone "the unbought grace of life".

Well, you get the idea. Insofar as the divine economy consists of much more than money, capitalistic notions of dependence and independence are to that extent defective. Just as one may be financially independent but, in every other way, a burden to society, so also may one be financially dependent but, in every other way, a blessing to society. Perfection in this world is conformity with the will of God. Financial independence is the will of God for some, not all. God willed St. Francis to be a beggar and St. Edward to be a king; He willed Bl. Margaret of Castello to be a deformed cripple and St. Sebastian to be a soldier and athlete. Is being crippled or poor a privation? Yes and no. It's a privation that God makes into perfection. The marginalized and disabled are not, as the libertarian Ludwig von Mises writes, "God's stepchildren", but in many cases they have proven to be His most favored children - and instruments of grace for the rest of us.

Yes, we should teach our children to earn money and to be "independent", but not for independence's sake. Independence is a means to a good end, or it is nothing. Which is to say that independence is a means for some - not the sole means, and not a complete means - but a means of serving God and one's fellow man in charity. I know you know this, Lydia, so please forgive my sermonizing pose tonight, but I fear the American (and specifically the libertarian) icon of independence is an idol.

Mark -- see Jeff C's response immediately above. He's fleshed out exactly what I was getting at.

The primacy of "independence" in the American lexicon is unconsciously limiting. It is thought that independence is enough. If I have become independent and do not burden anyone in a material way, then I have done my part, I have arrived, I am now fully emancipated, I am complete as a person.

Well, goodness, Jeff, you know I don't think that and would never say that, and I wonder if as many people think it as you think think it. (What a convoluted sentence!) To the contrary, I would bet that a lot of Americans, and not only Christians, either, would think as I do, with St. Paul, that "working with one's hands" to support oneself is partly for the end that one might "have to give to him that is in need." In other words, one wants to be financially independent partly so that one can move on from there to have _extra_ with which to help out other people. And as for being complete as a person! Goodness! The whole notion of the "poor little rich girl" or the "nasty rich person" or whatever is a staple of American culture, almost to the point of being a cliche.

That Americans instinctively reduce "independence" to financial or economic terms is also lamentable.

Well, I'm afraid that does lead rather to a "can't win for losin'" impression here. After all, my discussion of financial independence for nuclear families was intentionally limited to that _precisely_ so as to avoid overstatement, precisely so as to admit and welcome all the ways in which people are interdependent. You wouldn't want Americans to insist that people be independent in _every_ way, because obviously we aren't and cannot be and would be isolated and miserable if we were.

The thing is, Jeff, I think that you believe that Americans are "stuck on" financial independence, and you want their concepts to be expanded and to rise above those concepts. I'm afraid, on the contrary, that their ideas and concepts are _falling below_ even the minimal notion of taking basic responsibility for themselves and their families, that the increase of the welfare state, the "failure to launch" phenomenon, the increasing willingness to take on debt and to take debt lightly, feminism, and many other cultural trends are un-manning men and making men not even get to the starting line as far as aiming for financial independence and familial responsibility. I don't think you will like it if the American culture falls _below_ even the bare minimum notion that young people should grow up to be independent in the ordinary and minimal sense. You certainly won't get what _you_ want. You won't get them to rise above it and to include all of these loftier ideas if they become lazy, shiftless, irresponsible, and inclined to take support from someone else for granted. Here's just one concrete example: You and I both want families to love and welcome, even in many cases to adopt, disabled children. But that costs money and takes a lot of time and dedication. One parent often needs to be full-time at home to give such children what they need. Therefore Americans are more likely to be able to give in that way, and to do so in the best and most effective way, if they aren't already living themselves, even as healthy adults, simply as wards of the state.

You have to walk before you can run.

He's stated the same commonplaces.

Very interesting thread. Story of my life in large part. And I agree with Lydia and Jeff Culbreath.

Hopefully an angle that I could add here is to compare the anecdote to the parable of the talents. The arrogant young man doesn't want to risk his talents --borrow money to go directly forth to his dream of becoming a lawyer. (Or is becoming a lawyer yet another dodge, way of just burying and safekeeping his talents?) The employer wants the best employees he can get and reasonably, prudently sees some problems with this candidate: even if all goes well he's looking at a re-hire in a few years; in the worst case scenario he's stuck with a guy who doesn't want to be there, has no passion for the work, but is too afraid to leave. Bell did him a real favor telling him the truth.

Hopefully an angle that I could add here is to compare the anecdote to the parable of the talents. The arrogant young man doesn't want to risk his talents --borrow money to go directly forth to his dream of becoming a lawyer.

At the risk of throwing away your agreement with me here, CMC, I have to say that I disagree with you, there.

In no way should a person be thought to be burying his talents because he doesn't want to go into debt to go to law school. No way, nohow. About the employer not wanting to hire someone who isn't that interested in field, I'm inclined to agree, if the employer has better options. But this was all bound up with his unwillingness to take a loan from his father's friends. I strongly disapprove of judging him arrogant for that.

Good grief! College debt is one of the most pervasive problems among graduates from colleges, today. Essentially, the Canon is telling Hitchens to take out a loan, instead of working his way though college. Isn't this exactly the same idiotic advice given by counselor after counselor in colleges? I would much rather have been able to work my way through college than being indebted when I graduated. Just because the person giving you the money might be a rich uncle doe not mean that you do not have a moral obligation to pay them back. In the sciences, today, no one tales on a graduate student unless he can support them. On the arts, very few of the graduate students get supported and must run up massive debt. I have been in both programs and I know wthe difference I feel. I never had to worry about where my next meal was coming from when I was in graduate school in the sciences, but I couldn't even afford to do my laundry half the time when I was I graduate school in the arts. I quite disagree with the Canon.

The Chicken

Sorry for the spelling errors. IPad typing.

The Chicken

Jeff C.,

Having initially uncritically swooned over this post I must say that I find myself increasingly agreeing with Steve and especially Lydia in their further analysis of what it means to be independent and at the same time thankful (to God especially but also to friends and family) and grateful. Just this morning I thought of you as I was listening to Glen Beck -- he was plugging a service called "Food Insurance" -- which I gather sells canned food to people in case of disasters (or something worse like a complete government breakdown). Anyway, in the ad copy he talks about how important this product will be in making sure you are "independent" (bells go off) but then follows this right away with a couple of sentences about how this independenc is only so you can be prepared to help your family during a time of crisis. In other words, the ad was promoting the idea that you have duties to others and therefore during a disaster it is good to plan to take care of those folks. So there seems to be this strong current in American notions of independence that we are independent in an instrumental way -- only to help our family and friends because we don't want to have to burden those same family and friends with our destitution.

Might we be injecting some cultural assumptions, here?

Same way that charging interest on a loan in Biblical times meant that you were taking advantage of a person's desperation to profit, but charging interest these days on most loans is just a business arrangement, there could be a LOT that's going unsaid in the story that would be /known/ by those who were involved.

What is missed in this denunciation of "contract capitalism societies" is that they require a tremendous amount of trust to operate. There is a vast amount of social virtue in our society that stems from and is supported by this fact.

It seems to me that those who decry "American individualism" in such strident terms tend to have extremely strong individualist understandings themselves. I don't see it that way at all. Just yesterday a co-worker and I were marveling (as I often do about shared business activity of all sorts) about construction workers building a new building on campus and how wonderful the social interaction of doing this shared activity really is. Groups of people doing a project together and trusting their very lives to so many others. It is marvelous. Shared business activity is so rich with social virtues as to be marvelous. I have personal interactions with many people each day where people treat me far better than they could just because they want to, and I try to do the same.

The strongly reductionist anti-capitalist dismissal of that this is all merely "contractual" and corrupting is just so misguided.

Jeff S. - I am at one with you in my admiration for Lydia's thoroughly practical & common-sensical take on all this.

Anybody who can look around the gargantuan welfare state that is the U.S.A. today and come away thinking that what ails us is an excess of rugged individualism is obviously coming from an...unusual perspective.

Sure enough, it turns out that Jeff C. idealizes monastacism:

"Take the highest possible vocation of a Christian: contemplative religious life. It is the very opposite of independence. Its chief characteristic is communion: first with God, second with one's religious house, third with the Church. Its chief concern is the honor of God and the salvation of souls. The contemplative does not 'earn' his keep: he works, it is true, but it is unlikely that he 'carries his own weight' or 'stands on his own two feet' in strictly economic terms. He depends on God, on his brothers, and on his benefactors for everything. It's set up that way for a reason: to place a check on pride. And yet, and yet ... the contemplative doesn't know it, but he carries the world on his shoulders by his charity and prayers. There is no place more hospitable than a good religious house full of holy monks. Even more than their prayers for you - prayers from which you benefit but do not know anything about - they will give you their last loaf and their last cloak, and wait upon God to replace them. They receive beggars and are not ashamed to beg themselves. They know better than anyone 'the unbought grace of life.'"

...which is all very touching - but far from a viable model for normal human life.

Preach an ideal of dependency outside the context of that tiny minority gifted with a religious vocation, and you're just asking for trouble. Big trouble.

I have no beef with monasticism, but I always understood that the monastics themselves took their Rule to be the exception. Pun intended.

@ Jeff C. & Rob G.:

"Mises explains that capitalism itself makes receiving alms into something degrading"...

Well...von Mises' style is annoyingly elliptical & oracular, but I'm fairly sure that his point, here, is that if you're an anti-capitalist, you're in no position to complain that capitalism's solution to the problem of poverty - i.e., the "charity system," is degrading - 'cause it's only on pro-capitalist assumptions that there's anything degrading about the receiving of alms.

I'm not sure whether von Mises is right about this, but it's an interesting argument.

Preach an ideal of dependency outside the context of that tiny minority gifted with a religious vocation, and you're just asking for trouble. Big trouble.

1. Monasticism is not, finally, dependency. We depend on them far more than they depend on us.

2. Nowhere have I said or implied that everyone should be a monastic.

3. As to whether you actually missed my point in good faith, or chose instead to ignore it, I venture not a guess.

Jeff, of course you didn't say that everyone should be a monastic, but you _did_ repeatedly demur at _all_ talk (even, frankly, what has seemed to me fairly moderate and carefully qualified talk on my part) of financial independence partly on the grounds that it is somehow inadequate to deal with all the good things about monasticism or that it would encourage us to despise the good things about monasticism or something of the sort. You, after all, are the one who brought up monasticism _precisely_ in the context of _your_ insistence on objecting to all talk of financial independence, your characterization of such talk as being terribly unfortunate language. It seems a little surprising for you to object to Steve's characterizing your approach as "preaching an ideal of dependency outside of a tiny gifted minority," etc. That doesn't seem to me such an invidious characterization at all. It is you, after all, who are holding up monasticism as a greater ideal to which even the most bread-and-butter talk of familial fiscal independence is inadequate and which should serve as some sort of challenge to such language and to any ideal of _independence_ in society at large.

Yet surely you must realize that, whatever Ludwig von Mises meant or thought, your interlocutors here who are advocating what one might call "moderate libertarian sympathies" are not saying that monasticism is unmanly, degrading, or anything of the kind. It should go without saying that an advocacy of the kind of commonsense, everyday use of terms like "independence," "self-reliance," etc., _especially_ when discussed and carefully defined as in this thread, is not an attempt to rule out exceptional situations in which unmarried adults voluntarily join together in highly unusual, religious collectivist establishments--i.e., orders and monasteries dedicated to poverty and holding all in common. But the very fact that society would grind to a halt (and that no children would be born, for that matter) if these were more than exceptional is, in my opinion, a pointer to the larger fact that monastic establishments do not give us anything like an _economic_ ideal for the larger society. It is precisely in the context of his own family that a man becomes most concerned to make a good living. It is when she has her own children that a woman is most concerned to have a good breadwinner. And rightly so. The radical dependence upon one another of collectivism based on poverty and the eschewing of private property may work for small, dedicated, groups with shared ideals and without either children to raise or sexual bonding, but outside of that unusual context, it's a very bad idea indeed. You will say that you agree with this. But in that case why bring it up as some sort of challenge to "American individualism"?

Here's a deal, Jeff: You acknowledge that it's perfectly possible to hold up independence and self-reliance as important ideals for American society while acknowledging that monasticism is the exception that proves the rule, and I'll be happy to acknowledge that you don't think the radical non-independence of monasticism somehow holds broad-scale economic lessons that challenge the good ideals of independence in society at large.

"I have no beef with monasticism, but I always understood that the monastics themselves took their Rule to be the exception."

Monasticism is a calling to a higher, stricter form of the asceticism that all Christians are supposed to practice. There is an inherent tension between that and the Protestant-rooted capitalist idea of independence common in the U.S.

"Anybody who can look around the gargantuan welfare state that is the U.S.A. today and come away thinking that what ails us is an excess of rugged individualism is obviously coming from an...unusual perspective."

Really? When even the welfare-bound poor believe that they have an almost divine right to "have it their way?"

Monasticism is a calling to a higher, stricter form of the asceticism that all Christians are supposed to practice. There is an inherent tension between that and the Protestant-rooted capitalist idea of independence common in the U.S.

Rob G., if that were to mean that a father of three (or five, or eight) is laudable for giving away his (and/or his wife's and children's) "last loaf and cloak" and counting on being able to beg to replace them, then so much the worse for _that_ concept of asceticism. And if so, I'd have to agree that there is a tension with the "Protestant-rooted capitalist idea of independence common in the U.S." And in that case, hurray for the sensible, sane, Protestant-rooted capitalist idea of independence. Hopefully, we can find a reasonable place in society for monastics without drawing any such radical conclusions.

Your understanding of asceticism is either lacking or warped if you think that the example you provide is even remotely close to what the idea entails.

A much better example would be the Christian businessman who might be able to afford an Escalade, but chooses to buy a Camry instead, realizing that while he may want the former, he doesn't need it, and hence shouldn't buy it. American individualism of the type being objected to would say, "Well, he wants it, and he can afford it. Why shouldn't he have it?" To which St. Basil would reply, "If you have two coats, or two pairs of shoes, and your neighbor has none, you are a thief."

There is certainly a type of individualism/independence which is praiseworthy. But the current "have it your way/it's all about me" U.S. version ain't it.

I brought that up, Rob, because it was something Jeff C. praised in monasticism. My very point is that it doesn't apply in a family context.

Look, you have a _thing_ about this "all about me" stuff. You bring it up over and over again. This entire thread is about encouraging people to take care of themselves financially and about whether it's arrogant for people to want to do so and whether it's unfortunate in some way that some Americans still think "independence" and "self-reliance" are important and good things. _Not helping_ other people is the very last thing anybody on this thread is praising. In fact, both I and Jeff Singer have said repeatedly that one of the whole points of praising fiscal independence is that the fiscally independent person has more wherewithal to help others.

Moreover, here's an angle that I don't know if you've considered: The kind of independent spirit we are praising can actually encourage what I suppose you would call "asceticism." Here's how it goes:

"No, we can't have that, because we can't afford it."

Voila. A spirit of financial independence yields instant "asceticism."

I wonder sometimes if it is sufficiently appreciated: A strong free market advocacy combined with a hatred of debt (both individual and national), a tough-love, no-bailouts attitude, and praise for independence and self-reliance would, if consistently followed, entail a whole lot of belt-tightening at the level of individuals, families, corporations, and the government. It is the "we should give everything to everybody," "It takes a village," "We are all one big family," "There's no shame in not being independent" attitude that encourages people, governments, and corporations to take big risks, to spend more than they earn and to count on someone else to pick up the tab. Which is contrary both to what you call "asceticism" and to what I call "independence."

Worth thinking about.

'Look, you have a _thing_ about this "all about me" stuff. You bring it up over and over again.'

That's because I see it over and over again (turn on the TV or radio and wait about 30 seconds) and what's more, I see a heck of a lot of so-called conservatives falling into it. It's epidemic even among people who ought to know better. The universe does not exist in order to fulfill our whims, but an awful lot of Americans sure seem to act like it does.

"Moreover, here's an angle that I don't know if you've considered"

Of course I've considered that. There is nevertheless a difference between going without by necessity and going without by choice.

going without by necessity

But it isn't _exactly_ necessity (at least not in one sense) if you could, instead, beg for it, go into debt for it, collect money from the government to buy it, beg money to buy it, etc. Our very definition of "necessity" is going to be different if we have that strong Protestant work ethic and sense of independence than if we don't.

My point just here, Rob, is just that people aren't willing even to believe in such a thing as "necessity" anymore, and the idea that "the rich" or "the government" should pay for things (and that the deficit should simply grow without upper bound to pay) encourages a refusal to tighten belts and a refusal to treat doing without as a necessity. A little more shame about taking handouts wouldn't come amiss in stopping this trend.

Lydia,

This is just perfect:

I wonder sometimes if it is sufficiently appreciated: A strong free market advocacy combined with a hatred of debt (both individual and national), a tough-love, no-bailouts attitude, and praise for independence and self-reliance would, if consistently followed, entail a whole lot of belt-tightening at the level of individuals, families, corporations, and the government. It is the "we should give everything to everybody," "It takes a village," "We are all one big family," "There's no shame in not being independent" attitude that encourages people, governments, and corporations to take big risks, to spend more than they earn and to count on someone else to pick up the tab. Which is contrary both to what you call "asceticism" and to what I call "independence."

One of the many reasons I married my wife is that she is thrifty and basically hates debt (I, on the other hand, had to slowly learn the wisdom of giving her the CFO responsibilities). We could spend more on all sorts of little luxuries, but we would have less money for the girls' education and for our retirement, not to mention that we just don't need those luxuries.

Which brings me to Rob G.'s interesting example -- given that in most situations there is almost always a cheaper alternative to a particular consumer good, as in his example with a new car, I wonder from a Christian perspective how one could ever justify buying most luxury goods?

True enough -- many people can no longer tell the difference between needs and wants. But it seems to me that the sense of entitlement is downstream, culturally speaking, from the idea that one has a "right" to have whatever one wants. It's the narcissism that has led to the sense of entitlement, not the other way around.

. . . it seems to me that the sense of entitlement is downstream, culturally speaking, from the idea that one has a "right" to have whatever one wants.

"Right to have whatever one wants"? Oh, never saw that one coming. But seriously, not the first time I've said that what unites you and Jeff C is a wish to condemn American culture as *fundamentally* corrupt, and a tendency to "blame America first" in the sense that any given social problem can be traced to an American source. All else is just casting about to justify the judgement for which you need no evidence. This was why I drew the similarity with radical Islam to much consternation a while back, though neither of you is willing to deny it. Of course, the condemnation is of Western culture, but America is seen as the prime and most radical exemplar of the West so that is why American is the target.

So America is not the leader of the Western world? Or America is only the leader of the Western world when it comes to "niceness, and not evil?"

It's the narcissism that has led to the sense of entitlement, not the other way around.

Rob, I just disagree. Which is not to say that narcissism could not lead to a sense of entitlement nor that it never does, but that there is lots and lots of traffic from the sense of entitlement to that idea of a right to have what one wants. A huge amount of traffic. It's really in part a matter of teaching people, beginning in childhood, to "take things for granted." And I'm afraid that too many handouts, and no shame about them, can and does teach precisely that.

I don't have right here the link to an article by Theodore Dalrymple that I thought was really profound, though someone brought it up to me as though it contradicted something I think. But actually, I agreed with it. Dalrymple talked about the spiritual poverty created by the welfare state in Britain. In the article there was some woman who had messed up her life and was just going to keep on doing so, counting on the state to keep giving her new apartments for her boyfriends to trash, and he asked a doctor who had come to train from the Third World, "Does this woman have a poverty problem?" And the other doctor (as I recall the article) said something like, "No, she has a spiritual problem." And Dalrymple's point was that the welfare state had in part caused that spiritual problem. Soul-destroying. That's perhaps why some of us here are concerned about the deprecation of those "Protestant work ethic" virtues. They are spiritual bulwarks, in a non-trivial sense.

Here's a deal, Jeff: You acknowledge that it's perfectly possible to hold up independence and self-reliance as important ideals for American society

I acknowledge that it's possible, but it has a lot of baggage that needs unpacking.

while acknowledging that monasticism is the exception that proves the rule,

No, no, no. Monasticism is the Gold Standard. Here's how it works in Catholic thought. The religious life is objectively superior, more perfect, the better portion. The goals and ideals of monastic life should be ours too. Holy monastics set the example - not in the specifics of their every act (because some acts pertain only to their particular state), but in their Christian spirit, in their motivations, in their charity.

HOWEVER - each individual is called to a state of life that is perfect for him. If I am called to marriage, but choose the monastic life instead, I cannot attain the perfection to which I am called in that state. For me, marriage and family is the perfect means of my own salvation. And yet, I do want to imitate those whose state of life exemplifies the highest Christian ideals, insofar as possible while keeping the obligations of my own state. While that usually means things like working for a living and not taking food from my children's mouth and giving it to random strangers, it also means acknowledging my own radical dependence upon God and my fellow man, and living as though that matters.

and I'll be happy to acknowledge that you don't think the radical non-independence of monasticism somehow holds broad-scale economic lessons that challenge the good ideals of independence in society at large.

But I do believe that monasticism holds "broad scale economic lessons" that challenge society at large - just not the lessons you think. The lesson of the monastery is this: "the economy" does not belong in its own little box with its own rules and ethos, apart from society at large. Economic/financial independence should be attenuated in the same way that personal, social, and spiritual independence is attenuated - that is to say, within the more important context of community, interdependence and mutual obligation.

While that usually means things like working for a living and not taking food from my children's mouth and giving it to random strangers, it also means acknowledging my own radical dependence upon God and my fellow man, and living as though that matters.

At the risk of seeming too pushy, I'm curious: Can you give some scenarios, Jeff, in which that would have concrete consequences for a family man that you would expect the more libertarian-minded among your interlocutors here to deplore or disagree with?

So America is not the leader of the Western world? Or America is only the leader of the Western world when it comes to "niceness, and not evil?"

I'm not the one positing theories revolving around this. What do you think?

Jeff C.: I find little to add to Lydia's recent remarks in reply to your 4:22 a.m. post. Just this: if I have, indeed, missed your point, it was in good faith.

Please try to understand that, for someone with my thoroughly middle-American protestant Republican background, your take on things is often deeply puzzling. But I do my best to keep up.

Rob G.: So when "the welfare-bound poor" claim "an almost divine right to 'have it their way,'" that is an expression of their "rugged individualism?" - of the "We won't take a dime if we ain't earned it" ethic which Jeff C. has spurned, above, with his elegantly cloven hooves?

You are full of surprises.

Rob G: there is a famous essay by Peter Singer - a modern philosophical classic, if ever there was one - entitled "Famine, Affluence & Morality, which gives systematic expression to St. Basil's moral intuition & draws out the obvious practical consequences.

If you haven't read it, you should.

If you have read it, I'm keen to know: is this your own position? & if not, why not?

Can you give some scenarios, Jeff, in which that would have concrete consequences for a family man that you would expect the more libertarian-minded among your interlocutors here to deplore or disagree with?

I suspect a good chunk of our disagreement has more to do with language than concrete situations. But maybe not. Consider the following:

Our Lord says: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

The great St. Peter, who had a wife and at least one daughter, left his regular job to follow Christ.

In fact, it is likely that all of the apostles except John were married, and that all left their responsible employment to follow the Master and to eventually embrace martyrdom.

St. Augustine did not marry the mother of his son, Aedodatus: instead both parents pursued a religious life while their son was still a child.

St. Isidore the Farmer often reported to work late, in order to attend daily Mass, much to the chagrin of his boss. Angels took up the plow in his place while he was away.

St. Elizabeth of Hungary (not a family man but the head of her family), widowed with three young children, impoverished herself and her children to live a life devoted to the poor. She finally entered a convent and died at the age of 28. Not sure what became of the children, but we may presume they were looked after somehow.

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, also widowed and with five young children, founded a religious order causing them all great hardship.

A well-known Catholic college on the west coast compensates its instructors, in part, on the basis of the size of their families. That marginal difference in compensation is not "earned" by performance or ability and cannot be said to contribute to "independence".

There have over the centuries been numerous arrangements where Christian families lived in a quasi-monastic community. The men work at some common enterprise, the fruits are distributed to each family according to need. No account is made of who earns what.

OK, let's be creative.

It could be that a family man is needed to take care of ailing parents or relatives, or even friends or neighbors, and that in order to do so he must lose his financial independence - perhaps permanently - and rely instead upon outside resources which are adequate but not his own.

A family man might need to refuse employment that is spiritually lethal, leaving him jobless for a long time. I've been there myself.

A family man might be called to devote his life to the service of the Church in some way, leaving his family radically dependent upon the generosity of others for their material needs.

A family man who has received a sizable inheritance might devote himself to scholarship, music, writing, research, or any number of pursuits not conducive to "independence" or gainful employment in the "real world".

Many more scenarios like these can be imagined. Obviously these are weighty circumstances. Taken separately, few men should choose to live them. Taken together, they amount to a rather large selection of real life circumstances where "independence", in the sense I think you mean, is an inferior choice.

"Rob, I just disagree."

Well, it seems that one has to convince folks that they have a right to "their way" before you can convince them that they have a right to it whether they've earned it or not, since the latter is an expanded version of the former.

"I'm not the one positing theories revolving around this. What do you think?"

I think that the U.S. is the leader nation of the Western world, and that this leadership manifests itself in both good and bad ways. We export a lot of food, for instance, but we also export a lot of porn. We have positive political influence overseas (democratic ideas) but also negative (multiculturalism). Etc., Etc.

~~So when "the welfare-bound poor" claim "an almost divine right to 'have it their way,'" that is an expression of their "rugged individualism?" - of the "We won't take a dime if we ain't earned it" ethic which Jeff C. has spurned, above, with his elegantly cloven hooves?~~

No, as I said above, I believe that there are two (at least) sorts of individualism. The 'have it your way' sort is, to my mind, very American but very unhealthy, but I'm certainly not saying that this is the same as traditional American "rugged" individualism. The former is what the latter has, unfortunately and in many cases, seemed to have morphed into.

I'll give Singer's piece a look. I've also recently come across an essay by Richard Weaver entitled "Two Types of American Individualism," but I haven't read it yet and don't know if it pertains to this discussion or not (he uses John Randolph of Roanoke and Thoreau as his exemplars of each type).

To take it one at a time:

The great St. Peter, who had a wife and at least one daughter, left his regular job to follow Christ.

In fact, it is likely that all of the apostles except John were married, and that all left their responsible employment to follow the Master and to eventually embrace martyrdom.

These cases and the actual impact on the families are historically conjectural, so I won't give an opinion.

St. Augustine did not marry the mother of his son, Aedodatus: instead both parents pursued a religious life while their son was still a child.

Even without marrying her, he should have (and my impression was, did) take significant responsibility for Adeodatus's upbringing and well-being. If she dumped him into the care of relatives to pursue a religious life, I disapprove.

St. Isidore the Farmer often reported to work late, in order to attend daily Mass, much to the chagrin of his boss. Angels took up the plow in his place while he was away.

If he could get away with it. :-) I leave that one between him, his wife, and his boss.

St. Elizabeth of Hungary (not a family man but the head of her family), widowed with three young children, impoverished herself and her children to live a life devoted to the poor. She finally entered a convent and died at the age of 28. Not sure what became of the children, but we may presume they were looked after somehow.

Sorry, but as you tell the story, that sounds rather irresponsible towards her children, to which she had a primary responsibility.

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, also widowed and with five young children, founded a religious order causing them all great hardship.

Ditto.

A well-known Catholic college on the west coast compensates its instructors, in part, on the basis of the size of their families. That marginal difference in compensation is not "earned" by performance or ability and cannot be said to contribute to "independence".

Not a problem. The instructor takes that into account in planning his responsibilities and taking or declining the job. The money is given willingly and according to an up-front arrangement with the employer. In my opinion, this does not undermine what I would mean by familial fiscal independence.

There have over the centuries been numerous arrangements where Christian families lived in a quasi-monastic community. The men work at some common enterprise, the fruits are distributed to each family according to need. No account is made of who earns what.

I question the wisdom of communes involving families and children.

It could be that a family man is needed to take care of ailing parents or relatives, or even friends or neighbors, and that in order to do so he must lose his financial independence - perhaps permanently - and rely instead upon outside resources which are adequate but not his own.

Aging parents or relatives, possibly, especially if the situation is not going to make him permanently unable to support his family (see below), friends or neighbors, probably not. His duty to support his wife and children would in almost any case I could imagine come before the friends and neighbors. "Outside resources" is unspecified, though, and I'd have to know more about what it involved in order to see how it wd. intersect with what I would call "financial independence."

In any event, he would certainly need to work out with his wife where these "outside resources" were coming from and what it would mean for the family both in the short and the long term. For him simply to give up his entire ability to support his family long-term would be such a serious step that I am inclined to doubt that he would really be called upon to do it, given the fact that he is responsible for people other than himself. After all, the "outside resources" might well not cover his joblessness ten years from now after even ailing parents or relatives have passed away and he's blown his hope of getting back into the job market and ever supporting himself or his family again.

A family man might be called to devote his life to the service of the Church in some way, leaving his family radically dependent upon the generosity of others for their material needs.

Mmm, probably not. What we're "called" to do is partly discerned in wisdom by the responsibilities we already have. It might perhaps be worked out legitimately if support for the entire family were raised ahead of time by going about to churches and seeking support for the family's work, as a family. This is what many married Protestant missionaries do. And they do not leave for the mission field until the support is raised and the financial situation at least relatively clear. For him simply to *go off* and "devote his life" leaving his family to be cared for somehow or other (let the chips fall where they may) by the generosity of others is, in my opinion, flatly wrong.

A family man who has received a sizable inheritance might devote himself to scholarship, music, writing, research, or any number of pursuits not conducive to "independence" or gainful employment in the "real world".

The inheritance is unquestionably his own money, and in my opinion does not detract from his independence. Gainful employment and familial fiscal independence are usually, but not always, correlated, with large inheritances being a good exception. I would add that large inheritances often need to be watched and managed, which can be work in itself. He would need, however, to make sure that his children were raised and trained to have a skill and to be able to take care of themselves after his death rather than assuming (what probably would not be the case) that his inheritance would also support them all their lives.

I think that the U.S. is the leader nation of the Western world, and that this leadership manifests itself in both good and bad ways. We export a lot of food, for instance, but we also export a lot of porn. We have positive political influence overseas (democratic ideas) but also negative (multiculturalism). Etc., Etc.

That's pretty much what most people think, myself included (though I'd quibble with singling out America for porn given massive Asian production levels.) But the problem is that your judgements go far beyond what this statement would justify, which I think I reasonably characterized thusly, and you seem unwilling to deny:

"a wish to condemn American culture as *fundamentally* corrupt, and a tendency to "blame America first" in the sense that any given social problem can be traced to an American source. All else is just casting about to justify the judgement for which you need no evidence."

Lydia: "I question the wisdom of communes involving families and children."

God: "And all they that believed were together and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold and divided them to all, according as every one had need." - Acts 2:44-45

Sorry for being a smart-aleck there. Sometimes I can't help myself.

But seriously, it's an ancient and apostolic model of Christian life to which, I have to believe, at least some of us are called. Extended families have often lived in similar arrangements. In either case no one person (or nuclear unit) claims or seeks anything we would consider independence.

As for the many saints with families whose lives showed no regard for independence, well, the resounding approval of the Church is enough for me.

Which brings to mind a passage from C.S. Lewis, with which you are no doubt familiar, describing what a Christian society might look like:

If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, 'advanced,' but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned--perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.

Echoes of St. Thomas More's "Utopia". By "socialistic" I don't believe Lewis means textbook, doctrinaire government-imposed socialism in the sense we are used to thinking about it. But most Christian readers will know what he is getting at. It's an ideal that is still preserved within Christian families, monastic communities, and other arrangements (e.g., Mondragon) to this day. We should desire that our own ideals, at any rate, not be opposed to what we have received from the apostles.

The thing is, Jeff, I think that you believe that Americans are "stuck on" financial independence, and you want their concepts to be expanded and to rise above those concepts. I'm afraid, on the contrary, that their ideas and concepts are _falling below_ even the minimal notion of taking basic responsibility for themselves and their families, that the increase of the welfare state, the "failure to launch" phenomenon, the increasing willingness to take on debt and to take debt lightly, feminism, and many other cultural trends are un-manning men and making men not even get to the starting line as far as aiming for financial independence and familial responsibility.

Lydia, I think you are observing a true phenomenon here, but I don't believe the cure is a greater reverence for "independence". Rather, what is needed is a right understanding of one's purpose in life. If a man doesn't have a passion for the end, he won't be enthusiastic about the means.

Also, it's true that there are lots of slackers around, but that doesn't explain 18.6% (official) unemployment in my county. What continually amazes me is that most of the slackers seem to be gainfully employed.

Please try to understand that, for someone with my thoroughly middle-American protestant Republican background, your take on things is often deeply puzzling. But I do my best to keep up.

Fair enough, Steve, and please allow me to return the sentiment. Although I have the same background and know well the profile, with each passing year it seems more like another country.

~~a wish to condemn American culture as *fundamentally* corrupt, and a tendency to "blame America first" in the sense that any given social problem can be traced to an American source~~

I would judge American culture as "considerably" corrupt; "fundamentally" corrupt would imply that there's no hope for renewal. While I don't believe renewal is likely, I don't see it as impossible.

As far as "family" asceticism goes, I'd say that a first step might be resisting as much as possible the "bigger, better, stronger, faster" mentality that Mad Ave. constantly tries to foist on us. This could result in a form of asceticism which simultaneously maintains a healthy sort of individualism and independence. I've long believed that in America rejection of consumerism can itself be a simple type of asceticism.

I figured, Jeff, that at some point you'd bring up the Acts passage. I believe that other indications, concerning apparently the same phenomenon, within just a few chapters, make it pretty clear that that passage is either hyperbolic, that we as moderns are inclined to misinterpret it, or that it was of almost blindingly short duration. (The last of these seems rather unlikely.) The Ananias and Sapphira passage is about the very phenomenon of selling land and giving the proceeds to the Apostles for distribution. But A. and S. are clearly _not_ living in any "commune-like" relationship with the other Christians, nor does Peter blame them for not doing so, nor is there any implication in _that_ passage that such a relationship was even in that context the norm. Peter blames and punishes them for lying after emphatically stating that the land and the money was _theirs_ to do with as they wished and that therefore they did not even have any reason to lie.

Plenty of other passages in Acts and the epistles indicate great generosity among Christians but generosity combined with continuing to hold one's ordinary property and social position--some illustrations here being Lydia the purple seller and Philemon.

By the way, Lewis was no economist, not by a long shot. I've always thought that reference to "socialistic" one of his more unfortunate passages. The crudity of his economic ideas is evident in the utopian aspects of and conversations in _Out of the Silent Planet_. Just one example is that Ransom explains the concept of wages to the hrossa by telling them that if people do not work on Earth they are not given food, evidently by some sort of Masters in charge! This leads to a discussion of whether or not Planet Earth has a shortage of food, which in turn is connected to Lewis's confused notion that Planet Earth is overpopulated. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that, when it came to economic matters, Lewis was clueless. Which is fine and does not really lessen my admiration for him. One shouldn't be reading C.S. Lewis for lessons in economics anyway.

As far as "family" asceticism goes, I'd say that a first step might be resisting as much as possible the "bigger, better, stronger, faster" mentality that Mad Ave. constantly tries to foist on us./i

So, no Bionic Families?? But, but...

First of all, St. Paul was very clear about not giving away resources to the point of putting oneself in poverty. What would be the point, seeing as how one has done nothing more than shift the poverty from one person to another. Giving must be contrained by reason.

As for aceticism, this is a term that everyone uses, but few really understand. King David, for all of his wealth, was, essentially, an ascetic. It is true that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, etc., but richness does not, necessarily, consist in material possessions. Greed, envy, are types of virtual richness, whereas having an actual large amount of money without clinging to it, might not be. Detachment is the key - one is, rightfully, only allowed to cling to one thing: God. Everything else must, eventually, be surrendered. If one has this mindset, one may cheerfully use one's money if one has it, or rejoice in one's poverty, if one does not. St. Paul answered this problem (Phil 4: 11 - 13):

Not that I complain of want; for I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content. I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want. I can do all things in him who strengthens me.

There are solitary self-reliant people who are poor (you can find them in underpasses at night) and there are solitary self-reliant people who are rich, but there can be no self-reliant person who does not look beyond himself, if only to God. It is the fixation of a person to himself that forms an ever tightening hold on his love, his money, his relationships, and his life. Solitary self-reliance is fine as long as it does not devolve into self-reliant solitude.

The Chicken

thanks for the HT on the Singer piece, Steve. It's a thought-provoking essay. While I'd agree with him on the broad lineaments of his argument, I think that he misses it from the Christian standpoint on the idea that my obligation is greater to those closer to me. If my next door neighbor needs $20 for food and a stranger across the ocean also needs it, my duty is first to my closer neighbor.

I also think his utilitarian approach takes his argument out of the day-to-day world and a bit too far into the ozone of abstraction. There are lots of practical things to consider when thinking about duty and charity.

Having said that, however, I do think he has a point, and his quotation of St. Thomas is certainly applicable. There is such a thing as the "preferential option for the poor" -- it's not just liberationist mumbo-jumbo.

I would judge American culture as "considerably" corrupt; "fundamentally" corrupt would imply that there's no hope for renewal. While I don't believe renewal is likely, I don't see it as impossible.

We're all "considerably corrupt," certainly including you. Saying you believe in some "hope of renewal" sounds like an attempt to appear like a denial of my characterization without being one. It doesn't change the fact that you think the nation was corrupted at the beginning --original corruption. And you seem unable to deny "a tendency to "blame America first" in the sense that any given social problem can be traced to an American source."

Well, of course I "blame America first" if the social problem is in fact American. Who should I blame? India? The USSR? Togoland?

"It doesn't change the fact that you think the nation was corrupted at the beginning --original corruption"

In terms of what and in what manner? When have I said that the nation was corrupted at the beginning?

~~Saying you believe in some "hope of renewal" sounds like an attempt to appear like a denial of my characterization without being one.~~

I am pessimistic about contemporary American culture but not completely hopeless. What else do you want me to say?

Speaking of "the preferential option for the poor":

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-preferential-option-for-the-poor

I like R.R. Reno and look forward to his stewardship of "First Things".

Lydia, Acts 4:32,35,44-45 cannot be so easily dismissed. The fathers certainly took it very seriously. The argument is not that the communal life described by St. Luke is, was, or ought to be the norm for everyone, but that it is undeniably an ancient Christian ideal of apostolic origin, a form of perfection. St. Augustine was among the first to formally incorporate the ideal into a monastic Rule:

Call nothing your own, but let everything be yours in common. Food and clothing shall be distributed to each of you by your superior, not equally to all, for all do not enjoy equal health, but rather according to each one's need. For so you read in the Acts of the Apostles that they had all things in common and distribution was made to each one according to each one's need (Acts 4:32, 35).

If "we as moderns are inclined to misinterpret" the passage, as you suggest, St. Augustine was not limited in this way.

Although this kind of radical communal life is not for everyone, the underlying principles of interdependence and mutual obligation are unchanging and universal. The Church is the furthest thing from a community of "independent" self-made men, of rugged individualists, etc. Such an attitude has no place in Christianity. When I speak of the "baggage" that the vocabulary of libertarianism carries, that's partly what I mean - the attitude that comes with it.

Well, of course I "blame America first" if the social problem is in fact American. Who should I blame? India? The USSR? Togoland?

Here's an idea. Place blame on a case-by-case basis while demonstrating knowledge of the subject.

"It doesn't change the fact that you think the nation was corrupted at the beginning --original corruption"

In terms of what and in what manner? When have I said that the nation was corrupted at the beginning?

What don't you say that sounds like this? "the sense of entitlement is downstream, culturally speaking, from the idea that one has a "right" to have whatever one wants." Where did this idea come from?

Saying you believe in some "hope of renewal" sounds like an attempt to appear like a denial of my characterization without being one.

I am pessimistic about contemporary American culture but not completely hopeless. What else do you want me to say?

Something that sounded like you weren't completely hopeless that wasn't cliched and/or forced.

~~"the sense of entitlement is downstream, culturally speaking, from the idea that one has a "right" to have whatever one wants." Where did this idea come from?~~

Actually, I think that the idea started to become prominent in the early 1900's with the rise of modern advertising and the new Ford-type industrialism. In no way was I implying that it was somehow present at the founding.

"Here's an idea. Place blame on a case-by-case basis while demonstrating knowledge of the subject."

And here's an idea for you: show me where I've blamed America for a non-American rooted social problem.

@Jeff C. - it's actually quite refreshing to come across a conservative Christian insisting that the ethic of the New Testament is (fundamentally, to the extent that it condescends to concern itself with the things of this world) more or less radically communalist - and that there is no place in Christianity for the ideal of the self-made man, of the rugged individualist, etc.

I think there is lots of scriptural support for your view.

@Rob G: you're welcome - I thought you'd find it interesting.

Is it, in fact, the "Christian standpoint" that we have a greater obligation to our "next door neighbor" than to "a stranger across the ocean," or that "my duty is first to my closer neighbor?"

Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

It's important to understand, btw, that Singer's argument does not depend much, if at all, on his "utilitarian approach."

And it's even more important to understand that his argument doesn't just kick in when it comes down to the choice between an Escalade and a Camry.

Once one sets down St. Basil's path, it's hard to see where one stops, short of personal poverty.

it's actually quite refreshing to come across a conservative Christian insisting that the ethic of the New Testament is (fundamentally, to the extent that it condescends to concern itself with the things of this world) more or less radically communalist

Happy to refresh, Steve. :-)

Still, I don't think I would go so far as to call radical communalism "the ethic of the New Testament", as the NT does not proscribe other arrangements, and it has never been expected that all Christians should live this way. But it is without a doubt a strong and enduring Christian ideal with non-negotiable underlying principles.

Lewis hints at what was, in fact, the bewildering comprehensiveness of medieval Christendom: the fact that aristocracy and communalism, hierarchy and equality, privilege and subordination, each with their respective virtues and defects, not only co-existed in relative harmony but were intertwined and overlapping to an extent that makes the modern uni-dimensional brain want to explode. St. Alphonsus could rail boldly against the sins and faults of aristocrats while at the same time depending upon them for the support of his poor Redemptorists and occasionally receiving postulants of noble birth. Our society is different mainly in that we cannot process this reality, we can't call these things by their names: instead dependence is independence, aristocracy is equality, authority is democracy, etc.

Steve asks,

Is it, in fact, the "Christian standpoint" that we have a greater obligation to our "next door neighbor" than to "a stranger across the ocean," or that "my duty is first to my closer neighbor?" Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

Even better, Steve, it's the Christian standpoint, with a scriptural basis, that we have an overwhelming obligation to our own relatives:

I Timothy 5:8, "But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

Heh.

Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

I think it's more a natural law claim than a scriptural claim.

Scripture expands upon it thus: "Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith." - Gal 6:10

"Once one sets down St. Basil's path, it's hard to see where one stops, short of personal poverty"

This path, in Christianity at least, isn't logical, but personal and spiritual. It's not as if one accepts the premise then proceeds down a flow chart. St. Basil's statement represents something of an ideal towards which all should strive to move, but where one is on that path, and how fast or slow one is moving is a matter between God, the person himself, and (hopefully) his spiritual advisor.

'It's important to understand, btw, that Singer's argument does not depend much, if at all, on his "utilitarian approach."'

Yes, from the Christian pov it's not his argument per se that's problematic but its applicability. It's there where I'd see difficulties with a utilitarian approach.

"And it's even more important to understand that his argument doesn't just kick in when it comes down to the choice between an Escalade and a Camry."

Oh, of course. But for the American mindset it's not a bad example/starting point in my view.

By the way, the Weaver piece I mentioned above, while not entirely pertinent, does make an interesting distinction between two types of American individualism: what he calls "anarchic individualism" and "social bond individualism." In short, the former values the individual at the expense of the community while the latter values him as a member of the community. Obviously Weaver sees the latter as the classical/Christian model. It's a good essay -- well worth reading (as is all of Weaver).

". . . the Weaver piece I mentioned above, while not entirely pertinent, does make an interesting distinction between two types of American individualism: what he calls "anarchic individualism" and "social bond individualism." In short, the former values the individual at the expense of the community while the latter values him as a member of the community. Obviously Weaver sees the latter as the classical/Christian model. It's a good essay -- well worth reading (as is all of Weaver)."

The idea that there could be two types of individualism in any way other than purely theoretical extremes doesn't pass the laugh test. No, you want a real treatment of the term you need a philosophical account of it. Here's_a_good_one by D. A. Carson that does it justice.

Is it, in fact, the "Christian standpoint" that we have a greater obligation to our "next door neighbor" than to "a stranger across the ocean," or that "my duty is first to my closer neighbor?" Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

St. Thomas answered this question in my comment at the start of this post:

Since, however, precepts are about acts of virtue, it follows that all almsgiving must be a matter of precept, in so far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far as it is demanded by right reason. Now right reason demands that we should take into consideration something on the part of the giver, and something on the part of the recipient. On the part of the giver, it must be noted that he should give of his surplus, according to Luke 11:41: "That which remaineth, give alms." This surplus is to be taken in reference not only to himself, so as to denote what is unnecessary to the individual, but also in reference to those of whom he has charge (in which case we have the expression "necessary to the person" [The official necessities of a person in position] taking the word "person" as expressive of dignity). Because each one must first of all look after himself and then after those over whom he has charge, and afterwards with what remains relieve the needs of others. Thus nature first, by its nutritive power, takes what it requires for the upkeep of one's own body, and afterwards yields the residue for the formation of another by the power of generation.

"The idea that there could be two types of individualism in any way other than purely theoretical extremes doesn't pass the laugh test."

First of all, have you read the essay? I'm guessing not. It has primarily to do with political individualism not individualism in the philosophical sense.

Second, Weaver is not saying that there are only two types of individualism, or even that his exemplars are extremes on a continuum. They are types, hence the title of the essay. Also note that it's not called "THE Two Types of American Individualism," but simply "Two Types of American Individualism."

Your eisegetical approach combined with your penchant for psychologizing tend to color your hermeneutic. It seems you can't read even a three-sentence summary of an essay without inferring something either dastardly or ludicrous about it.

Your eisegetical approach combined with your penchant for psychologizing tend to color your hermeneutic.

It's sentences like these that give me peace that it will be a long time before a philosopher will win a Grammy Award for best rap song. Go ahead, rap it. I dare you!

The Chicken

Sorry, Rob G. It's the first sunny Saturday here in about 800 weeks. I must be suffering from sun poisoning :) I think I'll go lie down and apply some sun screen and wait for the next eclipse to happen.

By the way, what happens if a werewolf bites a chicken? During the full moon, does the chicken devour itself?

The Chicken

First of all, have you read the essay? I'm guessing not. It has primarily to do with political individualism not individualism in the philosophical sense.

Yes I read it, in all its Agrarian glory. I know it isn't a philosophical/theological account. As I said, that's why it has limited value and Carson's assertion that discussions of "individualism" tend to be heavily cliched is hard to argue with. Weaver's account, whatever you wish to call it, has all the baggage of an intensely artistic and bohemian political outlook. And I think the idea that there are two "major prophets" of "individualism" in any sense is just as silly.

Ah, once again the key to all knowledge, bourgeoisophobia, rears its head.

Lydia, it's not clear that the passage from I Timothy meets the case.

"But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

I think Singer could cheerfully agree to that. His point is that *mere proximity* should not be a factor in assessing moral obligations:

"The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away. If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him). Admittedly, it is possible that we are in a better position to judge what needs to be done to help a person near to us than one far away, and perhaps also to provide the assistance we judge to be necessary. If this were the case, it would be a reason for helping those near to us first. This may once have been a justification for being more concerned with the poor in one's town than with famine victims in India. Unfortunately for those who like to keep their moral responsibilities limited, instant communication and swift transportation have changed the situation. From the moral point of view, the development of the world into a "global village" has made an important, though still unrecognized, difference to our moral situation. Expert observers and supervisors, sent out by famine relief organizations or permanently stationed in famine-prone areas, can direct our aid to a refugee in Bengal almost as effectively as we could get it to someone in our own block. There would seem, therefore, to be no possible justification for discriminating on geographical grounds."

That seems consistent with a special obligation to provide for those of one's "own house."

JC: again, I think that Singer could accept the existence of especially strong obligations to others based on, say, shared religious beliefs, without it effecting his argument much, if at all. (As a matter of fact, he'd probably bristle at this suggestion, but he'd be wiser not to).

I hadn't read the Singer essay (and have to admit to no great urge to do so, as you can imagine), but I find it a little difficult to understand how, on his principles, he could justify "discriminating" on the basis of blood or familial relationship anymore than on the basis of geography.

Lydia, you're probably right that Singer's *own* principles wouldn't allow *him* to discriminate "on the basis of blood or familial relationship anymore than on the basis of geography" - but his argument in "Famine, Affluence & Morality" carefully prescinds from his utilitarian commitments. It really does depend *only* on the claim that distance, alone, as such, shouldn't matter, morally speaking - a claim which I have to admit that I find pretty compelling.

Given Singer's well-known views on other issues you care about, I can, indeed, imagine that you would feel no great urge to read him. But, in this case, at least, I'd urge you to set aside a few minutes for the purpose. It really is a classic philosophical essay. In a very few plain-spoken pages, it reasons its way from what seem like perfectly common-sensical assumptions to absolutely outrageous conclusions. You're left scratching your head and wondering just where, exactly, the argument went wrong. It's almost like reading David Hume.

Besides - it's always best to know your enemy.

@Rob G: "This path, in Christianity at least, isn't logical, but personal and spiritual. It's not as if one accepts the premise then proceeds down a flow chart. St. Basil's statement represents something of an ideal towards which all should strive to move, but where one is on that path, and how fast or slow one is moving is a matter between God, the person himself, and (hopefully) his spiritual advisor."

So charity, up to the point of personal poverty, serves as a regulative ideal, I guess.

It's almost like reading David Hume.

Heh. I never have that reaction to reading David Hume. :-)

Really, Lydia?

Every time I reread the first Inquiry, I'm, like: yeah, yeah, OK, so far, so good, nothing obviously wrong, here...

and then, suddenly - WHAM!

We have no *reason* to believe that the future will be like the past.

And so on and so forth.

Ah, once again the key to all knowledge, bourgeoisophobia, rears its head.

Or maybe once again Rob dredges up someone from Southern Agrarian school to make a point and objects when someone actually reads what they say? It is hard to find something that Weaver wasn't disillusioned about. He coined the term "abysmality" because, you know, the language just doesn't have rich enough metaphors for misery. And I was charitable in not mentioning his championing of a slaveowner as the moral superior to an abolitionist, a favorite Southern Agrarian meme. The CW was the fatal blow to the West's civilized order you see. And I can't help but chuckle when I think of Weaver railing against the term "unconditional surrender" and the deep philosophical meanings he attaches to it. Like the used-car salesman in an old movie I saw once that wakes up in a cold sweat at night shouting "refund!? . . . refund!?", it is hard not to think Weaver didn't still hear Grant's men chasing him 100 years later while writing his grad school papers.

I'm not sure what I can say about the Singer paper directly. Some is correct in my view and some not.

But as far as the I think I Timothy 5:8 angle, I think it sets an ethical floor, which too often is taken as something more. It is a good word for someone neglecting their family, but it says nothing to one who is neglecting his neighbor, or should say nothing to him. I sometimes get the impression in Evangelical sermons that all you have to do to be a good Christian is to be a good parent or grandparent. How many times have I heard the term "family first" in ambiguous ways in church that are never explained. Yes in many ways, but not in all ways so it all depends on what you mean. Unfortunately, I think there is a tendency (and some churches even teach this) to think in terms of a hierarchy of priorities and in that light it is something of a worry.

"Oh how he loved his children" doesn't seem to be high Christian praise to me. But we all want to think highly of ourselves and I think parenthood in this self-conscious age is sometimes now raised into some form religious piety, whereas in the past it was just considered just a normal thing to do. There is a necessary tension between the particular and the universal. Loving your own family is what is expected, just like loving those who love you is expected.

C. S. Lewis saw the man as the head of the family because of his outward facing perspective, whereas the "intense patriotism" of women militated against obligations outside the home that they tended to see in competition with their families. He thought the principle of love of neighbor was why men must be the leaders of their families. The complementarity of the male and female personality means that the tension between particular and universal is maintained, not without some fights of course. Women have a tendency to try to destroy relationships that they see competing with their own. Women tend to see money and time as a pie with only so many slices and their families starving for time, money, or attention if competition to the immediate family arises, whereas when men see things they want to do they tend to see themselves expanding the pie to accommodate. When men go wrong, things outside the home dominate excessively; when women go wrong, things inside dominate excessively. I think women tend to dominate their husbands now, and I think many men just don't want the conflict and follow their wives' leads and the family isn't as open to outsiders as it once was.

Steve--Ah, well, on that one, maybe it's because we defended the principle of induction as an a priori truth of reason. Chapter Seven. The Architecture of Reason, by T & L M. :-)

"Rob dredges up someone from Southern Agrarian school to make a point and objects when someone actually reads what they say?"

'Dredges up'? Someone who's generally considered one of the big three post-war conservative thinkers, along with Kirk and Nisbet, needs to be 'dredged up'? How very odd. That's like saying someone 'dredged up' Bruckner to demonstrate the beauty of the Romantic symphony.

"So charity, up to the point of personal poverty, serves as a regulative ideal, I guess."

That's probably a good way to put it.