Suburb

1. It seems that this new system of efficienty could not last because it was built upon a community that was still somewhat tightknit, with its members holding similar beliefs and partaking in similar activities. However, as these things changed and the suburb grew and the importance of the individual and self-reliance increased, the lack of authority which characterized the leadership meant that it was inevitable that it would run into problems as difference of opinion with no singular means of enforcement became the order of the day.
2. Economically, the activities of the church-goers, in all of their various clubs and events, even in the building of the church itself, were probably efficient in that not only were they run most likely on volunteer work, the jobs were also being done by those with a vested interest in the matters at hand, meaning that they were probably working hard at what was being done, all the while establishing good relationships with their fellow church members.

Suburb

1. The new leadership of Elmhurst replaced the old system of city rule by the 'elders" with a more efficient, more business-like city manager. Ehrenhalt suggests that the new efficiency worked fine in the short run, but fell apart in the long run. Why, do you think?
2. The fake community of the newly-created church nevertheless produced a lot of activity. Can you suggest some ways in which this is economically advantageous?

Ghetto

1. Ehrenhalt says this because the hardships the citizens underwent living in Bronzeville caused them to bond with one another and form a community as a measure of self-defense. It was from within this community, with all of its institutions, that the hope and the encouragement to dream for the future were developed and fostered.
2. Bronzeville institutions fostered community in many ways. They brought together their citizens and gave them a voice of their own. From their own newspaper, the Defender, to their mayoralty, to their various and assorted clubs, Bronzeville was able not only to give a sense of unity to its citizens, but also a sense of belonging and optimism, in spite of the difficult conditions in which life had placed them.
3. Business fostered hope for Bronzeville’s members because it demonstrated to them the success of those within their community who had risen above their struggles and followed their dreams in spite of hardship. It showed them that entrepreneurship had rewards, in particular because of the support offered by their fellow citizens who were loyal customers, which also helped make the business owners into community leaders. With business such as policy, it also had the added positive side effect of being a kind of diversion from the hardship of everyday life. The hope created by Bronzeville business was different from hope created by a TV show about the rich and famous because it was connected to real, tangible lives, with which the citizens of Bronzeville could relate.

Adverse Prosperity

1) The evidence he provided for his statement was the sense of posterity among its inhabitants. The attitude was that no matter how difficult things may be, the future was worth thinking about and planning for. Many inhabitants were farsighted, and they focused on events and ideas whose outlines were uncertain. In their hearts was the hope that through their hard work and determination they would break through the prejudices of segregated society.

2) Bronzeville institutions fostered community by building social institutions that were parallel to those of the white community. These institutions included a competition for the "mayor of Bronzeville," and even a full-fledged scouting program for black children. These and other institutions gave the people something to look forward to, a belief that there was a free society just beyond the horizon and hoped for its speedy arrival.

3) Business, legal and illegal, in Bronzeville was difficult, but those who prospered under the yoke were examples of "light shining in the darkness." They were rolemodels for many who sought to libe above the poverty line. Those who succeeded were regarded as moral heroes who won fairly against an unfair system. The ability to succeed amidst hardship provides hope that is different because people cannot relate to the rich and famous on a TV show, where the story is ficticious and romanticized for a captive (or envious) audience. In contrast, people who have a neighbor who owns and runs a successful business have a true and fascinating story. It is an example that is concrete and realistic; it can be grasped and followed as far as life allows them to. That is the difference between the hope created by real life as opposed to that fostered by a TV show.

Ghetto

1. Ehrenhalt says that, arguably, Bronzeville community “flourished because of adversity.” What evidence does he give to support that view?
2. How did Bronzeville institutions foster community?
3. How did business (legal and illegal) foster hope? In what way is this hope different from the hope created, say, by a TV show about the rich and the famous?

Swift on Community 2

(I don't know if I'm supposed to be blogging on this section or not......)
On pages 158-160, Swift talks about the difference between neutralist and perfectionist liberalism. He claims that the neutralist, unlike the perfectionist, will only allow for state intervention in areas where others are being harmed by individuals' free choices, but not because any kinds of actions are actually 'intrinsically evil.' He brings up the case of pornography, for example, saying that it could be banned by the state in the case of it harming women, but not due to the evils it inflicts on those who use it. However, this viewpoint seems problematic, because it does not give any support for how the harm arises if there is nothing inherently wrong with pornography. If it is freely entered into by both the women and those purchasing the materials, then how can one say that it harms women in any way without bringing in some kind of objective sexual morality, which would then apply to both sides? It seems that they are missing the connection between what is bad and what is harmful, perhaps trying to say that what is harmful is not inherently so, but simply so for that individual or group of individuals. However, it still seems that harmfulness must be connected to evil in some way, meaning that the lines will eventually be blurred between the state taking action on moral grounds and it taking action on the grounds of 'justice' for its citizens.

Swift on Communities

1.From reading Tawney, Nisbet, and Ehrenhalt, the conservative-traditionalist-communitarians are concerned with the parameters which allow people to operate in a moral way. They understand the flawed nature of a person, and aim to constrain people to do what is good. They do this through the community/society. In contrast, to a liberal who prioritizes the individual choice.
2.“Liberals have no problem believing that people should be responsible for the outcomes that result from their own free choice.” We have a right to free choice, and as such a duty is imposed on us to allow others free choice. Every time a right is claimed, a duty is imposed. Liberals are born with minimal basic rights, and duties.
3.On these pages, it is demonstrated the similarities between a liberal and libertarian. The priority on free choice, and the freedom from relative/societal imposed values.
4.While a conservative-traditionalist-communitarians would emphasize the importance of a society/community and tradition, they would not necessarily encourage a relativist point of view. Nor would the necessarily believe that it is the role of the state to maintain said values. A liberal would say that the role of the state in this case is to make sure that the individual has a choice in what to believe and accept. An emphasis on the individual rather than the community.
5.A democratic society by nature is to represent the view of a majority, the existence of a majority requires a minority. Therefore, it is not possible that everyone will share every value.

Community

1. Conservative-traditionalist-communitarians are concerned with authority, in the sense of societal ‘peer pressure’ arising from a kind of hierarchical community, which is founded upon tradition and custom and works for the good of the whole through the proper ordering of the individuals’ passions.
2. It seems to me that liberals are wrong in saying that men are born with rights from which follow certain duties. Rather, it seems to be that men naturally have certain duties or obligations, and they are given their rights in order to fulfill these. From this, it seems that there are certain duties we have which do not arise from our own choice but are ‘imposed’ upon us simply because we have been created with them.
3. Both of these pages talk about the importance to the liberal of leaving the realm of life choices and ethics up to the free individual. However, Friedman also seems to stress the fact that one cannot say for sure that there is an objectively better way of life (“of course, ‘bad’ and ‘good’ people may be the same people, depending on who is judging them”), while Swift says that even if there is an objectively ‘good’ life for people, it is vital that they are able to choose it for themselves.
4. Conservatives do seem to believe in the importance of social relations in the determination of values (although some values, they appear to believe, are objectively the same for all communities), and the need for society to enforce conformity to these; however, it seems a bit extreme to say that they want the state to be the one to fund those things founded upon their values, since they seem to believe in a kind of subsidiarity. Liberals on the other hand, would say that aside from a few basic things, such as freedom, justice and autonomy, which should be common to all, value is something determined by individual choice and not through societal relationships.
5. A democratic society would necessarily have to be somewhat non-unanimous in that there are going to be those (in the minority, but nonetheless present) who do not share the exact same values, and who would have to have the values of the majority ‘imposed’ on them in order to belong to the society. In this light, it seems that a certain lack of unanimity could be a part of a community, but this could only be backed up by authority, which seems to be a problem for liberals.

The Swift Community

1) From reading Tawney, Nisbet, an Ehrenhalt, it would seem conservative-traditionalist-communitarians are concerned with restoring some vestige of familial belonging within society that has been lost with the advocacy of freedom and autonomy of individuals.

2) We do have just duties that are imposed on us and are not a result from our own free choice. One of these is to be ready to defend the nation of our birth; as we are all citizens of the Union, we are to a certain extent obligated to help defend each other against foreign invasion. War is always a threat to the well-being of our way of life and we have a responsibility to our neighbor's safety and way of life. Liberals are wrong to say that we are born with rights but acquire duties, because all rights have responsibilities that require us to be dutiful in their execution, or else liberty degrades to license.

3) Both Swift and Friedman advocate a kind of liberalism that emphasizes autonomy of the individual and freedom to live according to conscience. Both see individualism within the community as a positive benefit; as it cultivates a drive for excellence apart from the mainstream.

4) Conservative-traditional-communitarians would say something like that; there would be a demand for conformity in morals and customs. Liberals would disagree on the grounds that everyone has a right to live according to their conscience and enforcement of societal customs would be an invasion of privacy and a form of oppression.

5) No a community cannot be non-unanimous because community is about family, it is about familiarity and uniformity. A non-unanimous community would eventually fall into factionalism and dissolve into smaller communities with their own uniformity in customs and morals.

Swift on Community

(From Swift, pp. 133-155. We'll read 155-175 for Thursday)

1. From your reading of Tawney, Nisbet, and Ehrenhalt, what are conservative-traditionalist-communitarians concerned with, if they are not so concerned with the “freedom and autonomy of individuals”?
2. “Liberals have no problem believing that people should be responsible for the outcomes that result from their own free choice.” Do we have any duties that do not result from our own free choice – just duties that are imposed on us? Are liberals right in saying that we are all born with rights, but then we acquire duties? Or are we born with duties?
3. Compare Swift, p. 147, with Friedman, p. 12.
4. From your reading of Tawney, Nisbet, and Ehrenhalt, would conservative-traditionalist-communitarians say something like, “our values are socially constituted, a fruit of our social relations. This is good. The state should protect them and enforce traditional teaching: it should fund parochial schools and Islamic madrasahs. Society should discourage heresy and enforce conformity”? What would liberals say?
5. Liberals promote democratic society as a “community of communities,” the ultimate community because it appeals to universal (unanimous) values. Can a community be non-unanimous, meaning that it enforces values that not everyone shares?

(To answer those questions, go back to your reading and consider this passage from Edmond Burke; emphasis added)

Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, [...]. By having a right to everything they want everything. Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human [lacks]. Men have a right that these [lacks] should be provided for by [government]. Among these [lacks] is to be reckoned the [lack], out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection.

This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights. But as the liberties and the restrictions vary with times and circumstances and admit to infinite modifications, they cannot be settled upon any abstract rule; and nothing is so foolish as to discuss them upon that principle.

Social Responsibility of Business

CEOs have responsibilities to the society in which they interact because they are members of said society before they are CEOs. Their responsibility is to truly maximize the value of the shareholders. That being the case, it would not be maximizing to create any negative externalities or direct produce any negative effects. Businesses only exist of the benefit of society, and as such are responsible for maximizing all the stakeholders interests too.

Labor Unions are not all the same, and not all good or bad. Labor Unions increase a dead weight loss for consumers, and tend to create monopolies. They make companies less efficient. Just treatment of workers is more important than efficiency, that said a Labor Union could be good. In practice, the effects are most probably more negative than positive. To an extent companies must seek efficiency and profits so as to maintain a labor force. As with all things a balance must be struck.

Avarice

1) The main difference between modern economic thought and the medieval view is that the latter starts from the position that there is a moral authority to which economic considerations of expediency must be subordinated. In contrast, modern economic thought refers to economic expediency as justification for any particular action, policy, or system of organization.

2) The just price of a product is determined according to the amount necessary to ensure that the seller will have the necessities of life suitable for his station. This concept protects the consumer against extortion.

3) In practice, usury was wrong because it enabled profit to be made without labor; it was easy to lend money and make a profit, when the moral was to work hard and "earn" your wages. It hurt the borrower the most because the borrower still had to repay the usurer, whether he succeeded in making a profit with the loan or not, and if he could repay the usurer the borrower usually ended up in debtor's prison or became an indentured servant to pay the debt. Dante put usurers in the 7th Circle of Hell with the blasphemers and the sodomites because usury was considered a sin against nature, like sodomy, because it was to live without labor; and it sells time, which is blasphemous because time belongs to God alone, for the advantage of wicked men.

The Sin of Avarice

1. Tawney believes that the difference between modern economic thought and the medieval view on such matters is that one (the medieval viewpoint) recognized an objective moral order/law within which matters of economics were to be judged and the other (the modern viewpoint) saw ‘economic expediency’ itself as the rule by which to judge these matters.
2. The ‘just price’ of a thing should not only be correlated with the factors involved in its production, but should also be such that all different classes of individuals are thereby enabled to obtain the things necessary for their sustainment. This concept is supposed to protect men against various forms of extortion by those who would overcharge for the products of their labor.
3. Usury was viewed as such an evil in practice because it is the ‘fixed and certain’ taking of money for which one has given nothing in return. Hence, it goes against the laws of justice, and also against the natural order of things whereby man is supposed to earn his living by his labor. But one of the biggest reasons for the condemnation of usury was its lack of accordance with Gospel values. As the law of charity and concern for neighbor is put aside in the order of loans, a danger enters in whereby not only can the borrower be exploited, but the usurious lender risks losing his soul, making him the worst one off in the whole situation. Hence, it seems that Dante put the usurers in this circle to show the intrinsically evil nature of usury and the consequences which it shares with other such forms of sinfulness.

The Sin of Avarice

1. In Tawney’s view, what is the main difference between modern economic thought and the medieval view?
2. How do we determine the “just price” of a thing? What does this concept protect us against?
3. Why was usury so wrong, in practice? Whom did it hurt most? Why did Dante put usurers in the same circle (the 7th) of Hell as the blasphemers and the sodomites?

Jolly Ol' St. Nick's

1) St. Nick's Parish seems warm. There is a sense of belonging that accompanies ordered living, especially when that order comes not from official regulations (like in today's gated communities) but from the unspoken "way of doing things", the unspoken way of life. Close-knit neighborhoods like those in St. Nick's Parish were able to provide many types of support structures for families when they needed it -- which is unlike the rampant "mind your own business" mentality that many of us grew up with.

2) Because efficiency and profit were not primary motives for all of the individuals involved, either consumer or producer. Loyalty, honesty, respect, and community were more important. That is not to say that they weren't motives -- it is just that they weren't primary motives. And, in the long run, it was worth more to Bertucci's and Ben Bohac to build loyal bases of customers -- it was better for business as well as better for their priorities.

3) Nepotism inspired in the workplace a sense of trust and duty that cannot be accomplished in the "every man for himself" workplace philosophy, or the "climb to the top by stabbing the backs of your peers" philosophy. Having family in the workplace made work a more organic part of everyday life: for the individual AND for the family. Work was a natural outpouring of other parts of one's life, instead of a segregated section that has little or nothing to do with the rest of living other than providing income. It was a family affair, and both the family and the employers were stronger for it.

4) A good athlete doesn't necessarily need a sadistic gym teacher -- there are many athletes who are internally motivated and need only guidance. However, there are some who would need the "firm hand" of a Fr. Lynch in order to excel; without it both they and the rest of the "team" would suffer.

5) In many ways, joining a convent was less restrictive than not joining. The opportunity to work "in the fields" of the best educational system around was one area where this is true. Also, life in general already contained many constraints -- the "unspoken ways of life" mentioned above in #1. With this in mind, religious life wasn't necessarily more restrictive, it was just restrictive differently.

Parish

1. The neighborhood of St. Nick’s parish seems warm for the most part, due to the fact that it seemed to have an almost extended family kind of feel between all those who lived in the vicinity. On the other hand, living in such close quarters (even with one’s own family) can be trying; however, it’s actually what helps build the community aspect, as everyone is forced to learn how to at least tolerate one another.
2. People insisted on these kinds of actions because they were based off of personal relationships of trust, where there was more at stake than simply efficiency and profitability. Again, there was an almost familial aspect to it all that led to real concern for the ones involved on both sides of the transactions and which led to loyalty and eventually, a wider and more stable customer base.
3. Nepotism can be a good thing for employers and employees because it can build a strong and long-lasting base for the leadership of a company, meanwhile lending a kind of job security to the family, and it also acts as an incentive for proper behavior among the younger employees in the family, as their actions can have serious implications for their own advancement or those of their relatives.
4. It seems that there must necessarily be a kind of good-cop, bad-cop duo when it comes to authority, simply because gentle example can’t accomplish anything without stricter enforcement and vice versa. However, the stricter enforcement doesn’t necessarily have to be brutal or sadistic. Making someone push themselves for their own good, even if it causes a certain amount of sacrifice at the time (which can be painful), helps the person reach levels of achievement they probably would not have if they had been left on their own. However, there is a fine line between the kind of strict authority that builds up and the kind that tears down, and when it is crossed, it becomes questionable whether the Msgr. Fennessy style of authority wouldn’t be more effective on its own.
5. Someone might join a convent without much thought for the restrictions because they don’t see them really as restrictions, but simply the way things properly are, as necessary for the upholding of authority, or else because they see them as actually lending a stability to the religious life.

St. Nick's Parish

The neighborhood of St. Nick's parish seems warm to me, but I think that it would be grating at times. It sounds like the kind of place I would like to get out of every once in a while, but always come back to.

People might insist on such obviously inefficient and unprofitable courses of action because they prized loyalty so highly.  Ben Bohac may have made less money on each individual mortgage, but his good reputation as an honest lender who looked out for the best interests of the borrower probably gained him a greater number of customers.  The personal relationship he built with his borrowers and depositors meant that they would never even consider taking their business to another bank.  He may not have made large sums of money off of each customer, but he could count on their business for life.

Nepotism can be a good thing for employers and employees because it teaches everyone exactly what to expect.  It creates a greater incentive for people to behave well, because they know that good behavior will reward their whole family and bad behavior will punish their whole family.  When forced to realize that actions have consequences reaching beyond themselves, employees will act with more forethought.

To a certain extent, the softer authority of a Msgr. Fennessey does require the harder authority of a Fr. Lynch to back it up.  Some people will do their duty with relatively little prodding, because they want to do it, but others need more incentive, other than their own desire. The position of harder authority does not need to be quite as belligerent as Fr. Lynch was, but it is still necessary to keep things running smoothly, unpleasant though it may be.

Someone might join a convent and "never think about the restrictions" because in the 1950's, there were restrictions to all facets of life, much more so than today. To a certain extent, joining a convent merely meant exchanging one set of restrictions for another, rather than having the added burden of additional ones. For example, Ehrenhalt mentions that women who chose to live unmarried in the community were put under intense social pressure, which was not present for nuns in a convent. Even if a woman did choose to get married, she would be prevented from pursuing her own interests if they conflicted with her role as stay-at-home mother and homemaker.  If her family's finances were tight enough, she might be able to get a job outside of the home, but certainly not one that would provide even as much intellectual stimulation as teaching several dozen elementary students might for a nun.  There were restrictions to every manner of life in the 1950's, joining a convent merely meant a different set of them.

The Parish of the Lost City

1) To me the neighborhood of St. Nick's parish seems warm.

2) Courses of action that are obviously inefficient and unprofitable are not necessarily so for both parties involved. One group may benefit immensely while the other group suffers, but there is a bigger picture. Though Bertucci's and Bohac's businesses may suffer, they build a loyal base of support for future contracts and new customers. They are investing in a profitable reputation, which will reap long-term advantages against future competition and economic prosperity from loyal customers when faced with economic recessions.

3) If the business is profitable, nepotism is a good thing because it insures that future employers and employees will be just as devoted to their jobs as their predecessors. It also maintains discipline within the business because everyone wanted to help their family members get a job at the factory; yet if any employee misbehaved and had to be fired, none of their family would ever be hired by the company. Hence nepotism established a sort of "guild" identity in the work place where quality and responsibility was enforced for the sake of significant others.

4) No it does not but a distinction must be made as to the purposes of the authority of both priests. Msgr. Fennessy's authority was respected and honored by those Catholics who were faithful. The good Msgr. ws respected out of love for him and his service to the parish members. In contrast Fr. Lynch 's authority was also respected and honored by faithful Catholics, but more significantly by rebellious Catholics. Faithful Catholics respected priestly authority out of love regardless of whether it was Fr. Lynch or Msgr. Fennessy; yet rebellious Catholics despise authority, and would not respect Msgr. fennessy's authority but for the fear of incurring Fr. Lynch's wrath. Hence Fr. Lynch's authority was necessary for the rebellious Catholics, for if they would not obey out of love then they would obey out of fear.

5) Usually someone who joins a convent does so because they do not see holy discipline as restrictive. However this does not come from any religious devotion, because there are plenty of devout Catholic laymen who do see religious life as restrictive despite their devoutness. There are those who are blessed with that vocational calling see the "restrictions" and find freedom from worldly hinderance to pursue greater obedience to God's will.