Issuu

ET COGNOSCETIS VERITATEM ET VERITAS LIBERABIT VOS

SLUH REVIEW Vol. 1 Issue 4

A journal of Faith, thought, and civics

Soul-Numbing Brain-Washing Rays of Distraction By Logan W. Hayward, Junior Editor

November 17, 2009

audience is. People do not set aside time in their schedule to watch TV programs; they turn on their set when they are bored. They do not hire babysitters to watch their children while they are watching television, as they would if they were going to see a play or musical performance. If people use television as a cure for boredom, as they inevitably will, and television producers know this, then these producers will create shows to catch the lazy eye of an easily-distracted viewer, not an inquisitive soul. This feeds into the deadly cycle of boredom: people looking for distractions turn on the television, and the more they watch television programs, the more distracted they become!

Most of the articles thus far published in the SLUH Review have dealt with the true function of government and/or capitalism. In other words, these articles have only dealt with the (very important) question of what the government should do or not do. I wager that all of our writers so far would desire a life where people focused less on issues of government and more on issues of religion, friendship, and wealth production. If the SLUH Review is a journal of “Faith, Thought, and Civics”, we writers should not just focus on civics (even if it is very fun)! I want to develop lifestyle recommendations that would lead people to practicing the Catholic faith and a good work ethic. So, I’ll examine a relevant lifestyle question: should people own television sets?

Yes, there are enlightening, informative, and truly funny shows on television, but I venture that for every precocious child watching Mythbusters or CSPAN, there are several more watching preposterous satire shows which turn their minds into rapacious vessels, constantly searching for oneliners and sarcastic barbs to throw at their parents and friends. I am no innocent observer of this—I’ve interrupted my friends and elders plenty of times before, and I think that my excessive viewing of television shows is a big cause of that.

Living without a television set is a radical proposal for affluent, middle class, and poor Americans—in fact, it is hard for me not to concede that television shows create a common ground for people. A rich man and a poor man, thanks in large part to television, can cheer for the same baseball team, tune in to the same character’s problems, and learn about the same scientific facts and historical records. Why should anyone give up such an egalitarian instrument? My answer: what good is it if people are watching the same shows if the shows are frivolous? Rich and poor people alike may enjoy watching silly reality shows, but would that really bing them together for anything positive?

I might seem to be arguing against a function of a capitalist economy, namely, entertainment, but I am really addressing an apparent paradox in the nature of capitalism: it can engender socialism! The more people earn, the more money and time they will (usually) have to spend on consumption, instead of production. If they spend much time consuming entertainment in a lazy fashion, they will lose the incentive to work, and will become much more cozy with schemes for government handouts, and lose sight of the founding doctrines of this constitutional republic. The leisure market has become a huge industry, in stark contrast to the small band of avant-garde composers and performers who produced the bulk of entertainment in years past. This leads me to predict that people

I assume that it is true that many people spend their television time watching educational shows. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with watching lectures or documentaries, but there is something intrinsically undesirable in the very nature of television. Television sets project noise and/or pictures to an audience no matter where the -1-

will become less and less thoughtful in forming opinions, and will accept at face value socialist plans, which can only limit freedom and productivity.

conscience, emotions, and logic. We base the decisions we make on logical reasoning or on our emotional feelings. Logical decision-making seems to nearly always be safer and our passions “are morally qualified (to help us make decisions) only to the extent that they effectively engage reason.”1 We must hold ourselves responsible to prudently choose which of these two gifts to use depending on the type of decision. Prudence is the key here because bad decisions lead to bad consequences. God allows us to make poor decisions because it is obvious that we learn through our mistakes. Unfortunately, our bad decisions and sins do not only affect us negatively, they also affect others because that is the nature of sin. We must obviously strive to avoid sin but must also, to the best of our ability, avoid allowing others to suffer for our mistakes.

Although the SLUH Review is profoundly concerned with policy, I do not want any federal regulation of television programming, because it is unconstitutional and would lead to bureaucracy which desires to control the lives of most citizens (it already has, viz. FCC). Why then, have I written all of this? I have found that many people who dabble in socialism have become disaffected with the frivolity and mass marketing in the media, often in television. I wrote this article in part to express the fact that the consumption portion of a capitalist economy is not its defining point. The true nature of capitalism is the freedoms to produce, buy, and sell, or choose not to do any of those things. The nature of true capitalism focuses on production, not consumption. Humans cannot perpetually consume without producing. If watching television easily leads to extreme decreases in productivity, anyone who desires to guard a free republic and foster a truly prosperous economy must limit the amount of television programs that they watch, or, if they know in their heart that a television will always draw them too easily into its aura, they must choose not own a television set.

By observing Christ’s example, we can know that we, as Christians, should forgive and help others when they make mistakes. But, if we continually allow others to sin through laziness, disobedience, greed, or dishonesty and do not allow them to take responsibility for their immoral actions, we will not be helping them, but rather hurting them. I know that when I face God on judgment day, no one else will be there to take responsibility for the times when I rejected God. So instead of continually being bailed out, I would much rather be taught to take responsibility for my actions so that the consequences would discourage me from repeating my mistakes. In the Gospel, when an adulteress is brought before Jesus, He does more than just forgive her sins, he instructs her, saying, “Go and sin no more.”2 Because of His love for her, he does not want her to risk her salvation by continuing in her grave sin.

Even as I write these words, I have not resolved to forgo ever watching a television show again. Rather, I would argue that the owning of television sets will become unnecessary, as more and more shows will be available on the internet. This is a good thing, because people will be able to access shows more specified to their interest, and such shows will at least be connected to sites where viewers can access more information regarding the topics addressed. Producers of internet shows will cater to an audience of people who are already interested in the topics mentioned in their shows. Meanwhile, people should realize that television shows are a danger to willpower and open-mindedness.

A society or system which allows people to perpetually take advantage of the generosity of others is hurting itself because successful societies need individuals who can accept the consequences of their actions. This acceptance lessens the extent of the consequences that these actions will inevitably have on other members of the society. In other words, the more people in any society who are self-sufficient, the more prosperous the society will be. Because of this and Christ’s instructions to serve others, it is our duty to help people become self-sufficient so that they can help others in the same way. This will clearly benefit the standard of living for all.

Decisions, Actions, and Consequences By Dominic Lanari It is evident that because God gifted each human being with free will, each of our lives is filled with decisions. Along with this gift of freedom, to aid us in making decisions, He gave each of us a

that money can provide. In a socialist society, encouragement to do good work and discouragement from doing bad work is stripped from you along with your right to pursue happiness. The economy collapses because the work force has lost personal initiative and has no further reason to work hard. Therefore, we must reward good actions with positive consequences and bad actions with negative consequences while continuing to make ourselves accountable for each of our own actions.

Now these principles can be applied to a real modern-day society. America was not founded to be a country where people rely on the government to bail them out of the consequences of their bad decisions. In order to be understood correctly, I want to take the time to say that I do believe that many people do deserve compassion. These people include those who suffer from serious illnesses or injuries that obstruct them from being “selfsufficient.” I also feel bad for those who have heavily felt the burden of the sins of others: children who are born blind because their parents have certain diseases or other boys and girls who must live their lives in wheelchairs because someone decided to disregard the laws forbidding drunk driving. These cases further illustrate my point that our sins affect others and also show that we should take the time to help others who have not been as fortunate as we have. Charity is an individual mandate, however, uniform distribution of wealth by the government to all is neither ethical nor the solution to any of these problems.

Was it worth it: Economics and Smoking By Luke Chellis, Senior Editor Arguably the most fundamental principle of economics is the law of demand, which postulates that the higher the cost of a behavior, the less people will do of it, while the lower the cost, the more people will do of it. The law of demand applies to any behavior, and I’m going to apply it to anti-smoking behavior. First, let’s get the health issue out of the way because it has no relevancy to the particular principle under examination, which is how people respond to the cost of something.

For some reason, some people think that capitalism is about money and greed. Capitalism is about neither of these, but is rather about freedom, the freedom to pursue happiness and obtain the sense of accomplishment and the physical comfort that wealth can provide. Capitalism is a better system than socialism because in capitalism, people are encouraged to take initiative to work hard. A man might think to himself, “I want to be the best employee in my company so that I can get a raise and enjoy a nice vacation with my family.” In other words, he is working towards a concrete goal which will benefit him, his company, and anyone to whom his company provides services or products. In a socialist society, a man would say, “No matter how hard I work, I’m not going to be able to enjoy the fruits of my labor any more or any less.” He is working towards an abstract goal, the “greater good of society”. He has no reason to believe that the other people doing the same work he is doing are not playing around, just passing the time until they get their next paycheck.

The cost to nonsmokers to impose their will on smokers, say, in a restaurant, bar or airplane, is zero, or close to it. They just have to get the legislature to do their bidding. The cost of voting is negligible. When the cost of something is zero, there’s a tendency for people to take too much of it. You say, “In my book, there can never be too much smoke-free air!” Here’s a little test. Say your car’s out of gas and stuck in a blizzard. You wave me down for assistance. I say, “I’ll be glad to give you a lift to safety, but I’m smoking in my car.” How likely is it that you’ll turn down my assistance in an effort to avoid tobacco smoke? You might be tempted to argue, “That’s different.” It’s not different at all. The cost of a smoke-free environment is what you’re not willing to pay. Say you don’t permit smoking in your house. When I visit, I offer to pay you $100 for each cigarette you permit me to smoke. Instantaneously, I’ve raised the cost of your maintaining a smoke-free environment. Retaining smoke-free air in your home costs the sacrifice of $100 in opportunity cost. Of course, I could offer you higher amounts, and economic theory predicts that at some price, you’ll conclude your 100 percent smoke-free air isn’t worth it.

In a society, it is good for good actions to have good consequences and for bad actions to have bad consequences. In a capitalist society, if you strive to make your business successful, good things will happen to encourage you to keep up your work. If you do not try, you will be deprived of the comforts

Air that’s either 100 percent smoke-filled or 100 percent smoke-free is probably sub-optimal because people have different perspectives and different perceived harms and benefits. At zero prices there will either be too much smoking or too little smoking. The problem in our society is that laws have created too much smoke-free air, as exemplified in the landslide approval of the ‘Proposition N’ St. Louis County smoking ban by nearly a two to one margin, 65.3 percent to 34.7 percent.3

The economic lesson to extract from all of this is that zero prices lead to sub-optimal outcomes, whereas the free market and the price system lead to the highest level of satisfaction for society. This lesson doesn’t just apply to the smoking issue. How would you like zero prices at the supermarket or clothing store? If there were, what do you think you’d see on the shelves when you arrived? If you said, “Nothing, because people would take too much,” go to the head of the class. -Based on Dr. Walter E. Williams’ column ‘A Minority View’ from March 14, 2007 and August 5, 2009, with permission.

In a free society, many conflicting harms are settled through the institution of private property rights. Private property rights have to do with rights belonging to the person deemed owner of property to keep, acquire, use and dispose of property as he deems fit so long as he does not violate similar rights of another. Let’s say that you are offended, possibly harmed, by bars that play vulgar rap music and permit smoking. If you could use government to outlaw rap music and smoking in bars, you would be benefited and people who enjoyed rap music and smoking would be harmed. There is no scientific or intelligent way to determine whose harm is more important because harm is reciprocal and mostly subjective. In a free society, the question of who has the right to harm whom, by permitting rap music and smoking, is answered by the property rights question: Who owns the bar? In a socialistic society, such conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion.

Interested in SLUH Review? Have intelligent opinions of your own? Write for the SR! We seek pieces that are thoughtful, well-written, and honestly pursue a Truth grounded in Faith and values. • The opinions expressed in SLUH Review are the opinions of the individual writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SLUH or the moderator. • All pieces must be submitted a week prior to the publishing date. Please submit to sluhreview@sluh.org. • •

 SLUH Review is online and on demand! Check out current and archived issues under the publications section of Media Galleries found on the front page of SLUH’s website sluh.org.  The SLUH Review meets weekly on Thursdays in J121, across from the Theology Office. Come to discuss ideas presented in the SR and present ideas of your own. If you cannot make the meeting, please send your comments, reactions and questions to sluhreview@sluh.org.  Not currently a student or faculty member at St. Louis U. High but still interested in receiving the SLUH Review? Please join our mailing list by sending an email to sluhreview@sluh.org. Be sure to use “mailing list” as the subject line. Enjoy!

What about the health issue of smoking? Smoking is a perfect example of the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. Both of these, too, are a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life. Some might argue that if you’re not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat “click it or ticket.” Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It’s a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. That being the case, the government, in the name of reducing health care costs, assumes part ownership of you and as such assumes a right to control many aspects of your life. That Americans have joyfully given up self-ownership is both tragic and sad.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1767. John 8:11. 3 http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=188876 2