Proposing an Alternative Economics

Here's my own contribution to @ISI @ModAgeJournal's Humane Economy symposium. "Good luck spotting the difference in well-being between a society of modest, boxy televisions and one of wall-spanning panel displays." https://t.co/9g1JjZDkzF

— Oren Cass (@oren_cass) July 19, 2021

It Takes a Tribe

Attunement is essential for a young nervous system to grow healthy. It’s also a great help for adults dealing with trauma. We all need to feel that love some time, preferably OFTEN.

Are you part of a loving tribe? https://t.co/eg2cw7rQGO

— Erwan Le Corre (@ErwanLeCorre) April 15, 2021

This afternoon at 5:30 PM EST, the Thomistic Institute at Georgetown University presents a lecture by Prof. Scott Cleveland of the University of Mary titled “How to Avoid Being Unhappy.”

Taking place over Zoom. Register to receive Zoom credentials.https://t.co/qAqSPEnRNe

— Thomistic Institute (@ThomisticInst) April 15, 2021

Will the academics figure out that their academic talk isn't enough?

Feminism is Dyscivic and Dysgenic

Scott Yenor explains, "The data is in: women aren’t happy." Read: The False Science of Feminism @theammind https://t.co/gOi4oyivNq

— Recovery of Family Life (@RecoverFamily) November 18, 2020

Happiness or Authenticity?

by Brian Davey, Chapter 11 of Credo Economics
(Resilience)

The Happiness Industry

by William Davies

Review in the Erasmus Journal.
Art of Manliness interview





The Zero Hour

Related:

A nice prayer in the box...

The "Science" of Happiness

Post by TED.

Someone Had to Do It

One of the most annoying songs currently being played on commercial radio.

Post by The Imaginative Conservative.

Would Have Made a Good Assignment for an Ethics Class

Evaluate the following:

Post by HAPPY - A Documentary.

A better solution...

Post by TED.

Post by Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

The Economics of Genuine Happiness

Plenary talk by Mark Anielski at the Economics of Happiness Conference earlier this year.

EoH: Mark Anielski: The Economics of Genuine Happiness

HuffPo: Why Generation Y Yuppies Are Unhappy

Fr. Schall on the Right to Happiness

Imaginative Conservative: The Right to Happiness by Fr. James V. Schall, S. J.,

Perhaps Fr. Schall holds to the Straussian line too much here. Can we understand the right to happiness not as an entitlement but as a freedom from interference by a central authority or as a curb on unjust exercises of power?

Aristotle and the American Founding

Happiness: Did the Greeks and the Founders Share a Definition? by Bradley J. Birzer

Who of the founding fathers understood happiness as an activity in accordance with virtue? And regarding the social nature of man, did they accept what this entailed with regards to natural relations and the importance of communal life?

The Common Good, In the Concrete

Some brief comments on What If Aristotle was Right? by Thaddeus Kozinski - I don't think I would trace the source of the disagreement to the Declaration of Independence, even if Robert George were to cite it as support for his views. If George wrote that this understanding of the Declaration of Independence was foundational to his education in politics/political theory, that would be more convincing.

Let us agree that the nation-state, in whatever configuration it happened or happens to be (Federalist or Anti-federalist level of centralization, libertarian-market or welfare state, Republican or Democrat controlled, lower or higher taxes, Tea-Party or Occupy Wall St. ethos, Bush or Obama, Obamney), is what it is, that is, an alliance, not a common-good institution, suitable for and capable only of providing goods and services to those polis organizations that can (but only with the Alliances’s instrumental help, as George insists) embody and keep common goods. Thus, it is just good philosophy to recognize what is and must be the case, and to act upon it. This, to me, is where George is coming from.

The original [con-]federation of States was indeed an alliance and intended as such. Thus the good of the alliance was an instrumental good, subordinate to the good of each individual state. If a state no longer wished to live in alliance with the other states, it could separate, that is secede. Given the scale of the federation, it does not make sense to say that living with the peoples of other states is equal to living with one's fellow citizens in one's state. (And yes, that does raise the question of whether certain states were too large in themselves.) The unitary nation-state that arose from the War to Prevent Southern Independence may pretend to be fostering the common good as it is understood within classical or Thomistic political theory, but it cannot bring this about because of the disparity in scale. And so the power of the National Government must be checked lest it become unjust.

For the record, I agree with Hannon (and Kozinski) more than with George. Some of the disagreements I have with Kozinski in this essay are:

(1) Regarding the historical narrative of the founding. I reject the nationalist narrative (of the Yankee) in favor of the truly federalist narrative (as put forth by the paleos and Southron conservatives).
(2) Statements like this which absolutize and do not seem to have a historical foundation: "that the Federal Government always was opposed to the existence and autonomy of genuine, non-alliance, common-good seeking-and-embodying polises within its boundaries.
(3) The usefulness of Christopher Ferrara's polemic, Liberty, the God that Failed (which should get a response from a paleo). (You can find a summary of the book in this review by Matt C. Abbott. A review by John F. McManus.)
(4) Then there is the conception of the Catholic Church as a super-polis... but an essay dealing with the good of the political community and how it is related to the [intrinsic] good of the local Church (and the [intrinsic] good of the universal Church) needs to be done elsewhere.




Prof. Kozinski recommended the following: What is the Primary Intrinsic Common Good of Political or Imperial Community? The author, "sancrucensis," of this post writes:

"So I would say that the primary common good of political life is the reflection in the community of the order of the universe. A reflection that consists in each part realizing its proper function, in the various parts being ordered to each other in a hierarchy of subordination, and in the whole being ordered to the glory of the Creator."

I think I'd probably disagree with this formulation - while the political common good is open to the divine life (and "subordinate" to the common good of the universe, God Himself), it is also an intrinsic good in itself - the people living together ("as a community"). While the author refers to James Chastek's recent post, he does not address the question of scale, perhaps because of his support for some version of integralism and an acceptance of a traditionalist Catholic history of Europe.

One can probably see the same trends concerning the loss of local community and culture in Europe, with the pattern of centralization of power and the growth of the state, beginning in the 1500s?! The loss had been gradual, but accelerated with the centralization of economic power and its dependence upon cheap energy. I think the trend has been even worse in the United States with the loss of sustainable agrarian economies and the cultural norm of re-settling somewhere else in search of greater individual or familial prosperity. While the early settlers of the states may have had a common Anglo cultural core, this in itself is not the same as a group identity or solidarity. (It would be equal to a cultural idetity.) Such a group identity can only develop when people [men] stay in place, commit themselves to the group and work together for the benefit of the group. Such localized group identities (and local patriotism) probably still existed to a great degree in the states before Lincoln's war.

Related:
The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism
Thaddeus Kozinski Makes an Argument for a Catholic Confessional State

"Well-Being of Society" Subject of Upcoming Conference
UK Ambassador to Holy See Speaks on Challenges of Promoting "Happiness"

Marshall vs. Jefferson Then and Now: How the Intellectual and Political Struggle Over the Constitution Resonates Today by Phillip G. Henderson

Was There A Founding? by John Willson

How Liberal is Uhmerica?

Your-Daimonia is Not Eudaimonia: A Response to Robert Miller by J. L. Liedl (who takes up the position of Patrick Deneen)

The Centrality of "Roles" to Moral Agency

(and by extension, to ethics)

Motherhood role no longer a source of value?

What Mr. Richardson refers to as a transcendent social role (and the institutional commitment to it) I would explain as an [humble] acceptance of one's roles/offices/duties&responsibilities - it's not about me, and not all such duties&responsibilities are "voluntary" or binding only if I "consent." That we owe love and car to others is the way out of narcissism, disordered self-love. "To diffuse the good" is necessity and obligatory (commanded through natural law) because I cannot be happy otherwise. I am not created to be self-sufficient, or for the world to revolve around me and my needs. (We may be naturally inclined to act in such a way, but in reason we realize that it is imperative for us to act thusly.)

On Those Happiness Studies...

Le Cygne Gris links to an article taking a closer look. What is happiness? And how is it different from a meaningful life? The old question of eudaimonia.

A Lecture by Charles Murray

I missed this post at the Imaginative Conservative when it was published earlier this year: In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government



In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government
Synopsis

Review at The Freeman
Kirkus Reviews

Cecile Andrews: Simplicity, Joy and Social Change

Peak Moment 220: Simplicity, Joy and Social Change by Yuba Gals Independent Media (EB)

Hobbits Agree

NPR: Singing: The Key To A Long Life by BRIAN ENO