“After
theology—economics is the most important science to study
because the two things that impact everyone are God and the market.”[i]
The political, economic, and civilization spheres interrelate. If you've come across this blog, maybe you already know that.
In case you’re not aware, Hillsdale College is offering yet another free online course. It’s Constitution 101 again, but with new lectures. Sort of like taking the same class again, with different teachers, so you pick up different details.
In case you’re not aware, Hillsdale College is offering yet another free online course. It’s Constitution 101 again, but with new lectures. Sort of like taking the same class again, with different teachers, so you pick up different details.
Already they have lecture nine available, but I’ve been
going through at my leisure and recently listened (and then re-listened) to lecture
5: “To Secure These Rights: Economics, Religion, and Character.” Here at The Spherical Model, the connection between economics and social behavior was bound to perk
my interest.
The lecturer is Thomas G. West. This section of the lecture
begins about 29 minutes in:
It seems strange to us that a political society whose purpose
is to secure life, liberty and property, should concern itself with citizen
character. Harvey Mansfield formulates the paradox nicely. “Liberty and virtue
are not a likely pair. At first sight, they seem to be contraries, for liberty
appears to mean living as you please and virtue appears to mean living not as
you please but as you ought.” But, morality is not something that government
can choose either to concern itself with or to ignore. The moral law, in the
founders’ view, is not intentioned with or supplemental to the natural law
theory. It is its foundation. The founders tended to equate the moral law with
the law of nature.
A large part of this final portion concerns maintaining the
family, the basic unit of civilization:
The connection between laws on sex and marriage and
government’s duty to secure the natural rights of all is today probably less
well understood than almost anything else in the founding. These laws all had
one main object: to encourage people to get married and stay married. The
integrity of the family was believed to be necessary to the protection as well
as the happiness of human beings: men, women and children alike. The love of married
parents for their biological offspring was judged the most reliable motivation
for the sometimes unpleasant duties of providing suitable care for children.
Although it was written some years after the founding, an
1836 essay by Joseph Storey, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by
President Madison, sums up the founders’ view very nicely. “Marriage is an
institution which may properly be deemed to arise from the law of nature. It
promotes the private comfort of both parties. It promotes the private comfort
of both parties. It tends to the procreation of the greatest number of healthy
citizens, and to their proper maintenance and education…. It promotes the cause
of sound morals by cultivating domestic affections and virtues.”
This next portion concerns the definition of marriage today:
This older, child-centered view of marriage has been
replaced, in our time, with a sentimental, romantic love view. The idea of
same-sex marriage makes perfect sense in a world where marriage has effectively
been redefined as a partnership of people who love each other and who feel
justified in splitting up if love happens to fade. As marriage collapses
throughout the western world, children’s support comes increasingly from more
productive men coerced by the state into transferring money either by
court-ordered child support or by taxation that funds welfare and other
benefits, to less productive mothers who choose to live apart from their
children’s fathers.
Professor West doesn’t claim that legislation has redefined marriage; it’s
more a matter of pop culture changing the definition through propaganda, and
then pushing legal institutions to “stay with the times.” Anyone who says, “Wait,
what’s wrong with the definition we’ve had all along,” they get accused of hate
and bigotry. The cost for giving in is the decay of the very basic necessary
building material of society.
I have a major portion of the family section of The Spherical Model
that relates to the ways of dealing
with the results of sex outside marriage, if society is to maintain the
integrity of the family. It is helpful, of course, if laws support the family,
but it is more essential for families, extended families, churches, and
communities, to encourage the correction of behavior, so that the value of
family is maintained. And also so that the damage to society from family decay
is not transferred onto the larger society.
Professor West describes the founders’ approach to be
similar. Laws and policies might seem harsh today, but in reality, harshness
only applied when “the misbehavior became open and notorious.” Loving, caring
friends and family are better at encouraging valued behavior than threat of
legal punishment. But underneath both private and public policy was an
understanding of how essential family strength was to economic prosperity and
happiness in society.
As I was writing this today, I came across information about
a documentary coming to theaters this weekend, called Irreplaceable,
about the economic and social value of fathers in the home. Is it time to
re-define marriage downward? Not unless you want more poverty and unhappiness
for the foreseeable future. Here's the three-minute trailer:
[i] Deacon Patrick Moynihan,
Head of LCS [Louverture Cleary School], comments on the importance of teaching
economics in Haiti; the quote comes from http://thpspeaks.org/post/81769904394/economics-breaking-the-vicious-cycle-through-education
. I found this quote in Harvard
Economics Professor Greg Mankiw’s blog 4-9-2014, http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2014/04/sentence-of-day.html
.
No comments:
Post a Comment