National Guardsmen Won't Be Armed

Both the WSJ and the WaPo are reporting that there might be armed Guardsmen deployed to DC. I'll wager heavily that, if this proves true at all, there are sharp limits on that.

Defense officials had previously said the 800 National Guard soldiers deployed to the city wouldn’t be armed, unlike many federal law enforcement agents sent to the capital. They also weren’t to have weapons in their vehicles. “Weapons are available if needed but will remain in the armory,” the U.S. Army said in a press release Thursday. 

Late Friday, some Guard members deployed to Washington were told to expect an order to carry weapons, according to people familiar with the planning. However as of Saturday morning, no formal order had been given, a Defense Department official said.  

A Pentagon spokeswoman referred questions to the Army. An Army spokesman didn’t return a request for comment.

That sounds like a warning order went out, which may not be followed up with a fragmentary order to that effect later. I would guess these 'some' are very few, perhaps a military police unit that is going to be kept armed as a quick reaction force in case anyone attacks a Guard position. There won't be hundreds of armed Guardsmen roaming the city.

In Iraq, we didn't carry loaded rifles or handguns until and unless we were actually going outside the wire. Even the regulars did not. The National Guard units I was with very regularly shot their clearing barrels on the way back in. They're just not used to carrying loaded guns all the time. Their NCOs know that and will be putting maximal allowed restrictions to try to stop problems. The officers know that, and will be trying to give their sergeants as free a hand as possible to stop problems. 

My trip to DC has been moved up to this month, so I guess I'll see for myself soon enough. I'm expecting noisy protests but not any real violence. 

What Feminists Like in a Man

Let me give any youngsters hanging around here a bit of advice. 

The Performative Male curates his aesthetic in a way that he thinks might render him more likable to progressive women. He is, in short, the antithesis of the toxic man. “It’s men who are trying to cater to what they think women who are feminist like,” said Guinevere Unterbrink, 24, an art teacher who was one of the contest’s hosts.

Having known many feminists all my life, I can tell you what they want from you. They want you to be honest with them, upright in your habits, faithful in your word. It'll help if you ride a motorcycle, but only if you clearly do it because you love it. 

They're just women. You don't have to bend yourself into a pretzel. Honor and honesty is what they want to see from you; if you're true to yourself and you're true to them, they'll probably make accommodations for your philosophical disagreements. 

And if they won't, you'll be happier without them. As the old song says, "If you don't like me, then leave me alone." 

By the way, my respects to whomever named her "Guinevere." What a fine choice. 

Burn it Down

The NYT published a barn burner yesterday: "Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court: Why the Left can't Win without a new Constitution." That link should be a gift link that lets anyone read it; everyone should, probably. Here's the archive version.

It's an interview with Osita Nwanevu, whom you can read more about here. I expect this is going to solidify a lot of opinion on the American left. 

UPDATE: As I continue to think about this interview, I've decided the really radical suggestion wasn't any of the things they put in the headline. What would really constitute a significant change is this application of "democracy":

The background intuition that people have in mind about democracy, even if they don’t know it consciously, is that we are entitled to an amount of say, a basic level of say, over the conditions that shape our lives. We’re not mere victims of circumstance helplessly thrown about by the universe. We’re not the peons of particular hierarchies of people who are more powerful than us or more privileged than us. That’s a basic democratic intuition. 

One of the things that has gone around progressive circles over the last decade or so is you have people like Elizabeth Anderson, for instance, who make the point that we are governed in more spaces than just the political sphere. We spend about a third of our time at work. The decisions that are made at the top of corporations we work for often affect us more directly, intimately, and immediately than decisions made in Washington, D.C., or in our statehouses or in city hall. And yet we feel that we’re not democratically entitled to any kind of voice in those spaces, except for maybe hoping that we can act through government to regulate the economy. When we try to do that, we find that Washington, D.C., and political institutions are often dominated by wealthy people — our bosses. 

When it comes to solving the concrete problems of inequality, worker power — the absence of worker power, the absence of worker voice — is one of the things that’s contributed to our current economic situation. That is a democratic problem, and I think it suggests democratic solutions as well.

The 'democratic' solution being, obviously, to subject corporations to worker 'democracy' over how their resources are distributed. People will vote themselves more: higher wages, better working conditions, ownership of the company and its property. It is, in other words, 'democratic' in the sense of being Democratic Socialism. It's not just structural changes about how the existing constitutionalism works; it's not even a new constitution, as the subhead suggests. It's putting everything in a pot and letting the majority do whatever it wants with it. 

There are a number of problems with that approach, even if one is perfectly willing to accept that this constitutes a moral action rather than just theft on a grand scale. 

Lying for a Living

This is definitely not how America, the land of the free, should operate. 

Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 1,452 confidential interviews with undergraduates... We asked: Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically? An astounding 88 percent said yes....

Students know something is wrong. When given permission to speak freely, many described the experience of participating in our survey not as liberating, but as clarifying. They weren’t escaping responsibility — they were reclaiming it. For students trained to perform, the act of telling the truth felt radical.

I assume like other psychology studies there will be a problem with replication of this, but that's an astonishing finding. I wonder how well that holds up across disciplines? I would think philosophy students more honest about what they think, for example, because how could you hide it when engaged in so many deep discussions of ideas?

Winter Can Come

After yesterday’s labors I feel that we are ready for the cold weather to come. 

A Demonstration of the Streisand Effect

Apparently, the UK censors didn't enjoy this Coinbase ad as much as I did.

Technically, it was only rejected for broadcast TV, which is different from a ban, so everything is fine.

Nicomachean Ethics IV.9: On Shame

This final chapter of Book IV is so short I'll go ahead and do it today, even though we've already had a post about an interesting topic of contemporary interest. 

Shame should not be described as a virtue; for it is more like a feeling than a state of character. It is defined, at any rate, as a kind of fear of dishonour, and produces an effect similar to that produced by fear of danger; for people who feel disgraced blush, and those who fear death turn pale. Both, therefore, seem to be in a sense bodily conditions, which is thought to be characteristic of feeling rather than of a state of character.

It won't surprise contemporary thinkers that shame should not be described as a virtue, but it probably does surprise that it might have ever been mistaken for one. In our age we have tended to reject it as a proper guide at all. Confidence in embracing yourself as you are is instead our age's watchword for virtue. Shame is considered something like a negative product of anxiety, used probably as an enforcement mechanism by oppressive actors, inculcated through practices that were probably abusive: an overbearing mother, conservative Christians, patriarchy, all of which have strongly negative connotations. 

Nevertheless if a sense of honor is the most reliable guide to not merely keeping to what is permitted but striving for the very best, then fear of dishonor could seem like almost a parallel sense. What separates them so cleanly for Aristotle? 

First, notice that his remarks on shame make it a kind of passion like fear of danger. The virtue is not a passion, but a state of character that allows you to act properly regardless of passions. 

Second, recall that receipt of honors -- which is the actual parallel to fear of receiving dishonor -- was dismissed as a proper end of ethics in I.5 because it depends too much on others to give it to you or withhold it from you. Shame is the same way: you are motivated by things you don't control. The proper attitude of the virtuous to honor and dishonor are the same, as we learn in the chapters on magnanimity: you should behave in the manner that is most worthy of honor, but disdain whether or not you receive honor or dishonor for doing so. If you receive dishonor but know you behaved honorably, you disregard it because you know it does not rightly attach to you.

The feeling [of shame] is not becoming to every age, but only to youth. For we think young people should be prone to the feeling of shame because they live by feeling and therefore commit many errors, but are restrained by shame; and we praise young people who are prone to this feeling...

This is a good concept because you can see the relationship between shame and a proper upbringing. The young, who have not fully understood how to reason yet and are driven by feeling, will find in being fearful of dishonor at least a road to the right starting point. Once they understand to avoid the base and seek the noble, and have some working examples of what those things are from which to reason, they should lay aside shame as 'when I became a man, I put away childish things.' (Cor. 13:11) 

...but an older person no one would praise for being prone to the sense of disgrace, since we think he should not do anything that need cause this sense. For the sense of disgrace is not even characteristic of a good man, since it is consequent on bad actions (for such actions should not be done; and if some actions are disgraceful in very truth and others only according to common opinion, this makes no difference; for neither class of actions should be done, so that no disgrace should be felt); and it is a mark of a bad man even to be such as to do any disgraceful action. To be so constituted as to feel disgraced if one does such an action, and for this reason to think oneself good, is absurd; for it is for voluntary actions that shame is felt, and the good man will never voluntarily do bad actions. 

Here Aristotle says something a little different than in the chapters on magnanimity: here he says that a good man needn't fear disgrace because he won't do anything bad -- neither bad things in fact, nor bad things in the common opinion. He may be speaking only of 'good' men here, and not of the 'great,' as when he was speaking of magnanimity. When seeking the best, it may sometimes be the case that common opinion is against it; it may often be that common people don't see why it was right. The best do what they know is most worthy, and disregard the common opinion about it.

The more ordinarily good, of course, avoid scandal as well as actual wrongdoing. Like our former Vice President refusing to dine or meet alone with any women not his wife, he avoids even the possibility of scandal. However: "The wicked flee when no one pursues, But the righteous are bold as a lion." (Proverbs 28:1)

But shame may be said to be conditionally a good thing; if a good man does such actions, he will feel disgraced; but the virtues are not subject to such a qualification. And if shamelessness-not to be ashamed of doing base actions-is bad, that does not make it good to be ashamed of doing such actions. Continence too is not virtue, but a mixed sort of state; this will be shown later. Now, however, let us discuss justice.

Book V will thus begin with one of the most compelling virtues to subsequent philosophers: justice.

The fate of Ukraine

Spoiler: it doesn't include getting back the Eastern provinces. This HotAir article embeds a useful videographic of European boundaries over the last 1,000+ years.

Nicomachean Ethics IV.8: A Night at the Pub with Aristotle

We have a vision of what Greek wine-drinking parties were like among the lively philosophers and playwrights of the era in Plato's Symposium. That vision has been so pleasing to generations of academics that it has become synonymous with an academic gathering to discuss any topic in detail; certainly the philosophy conferences I attended usually (though not universally) included a celebratory visit to a drinking establishment at some point. This is another chapter of the EN that compares and contrasts nicely with the Havamal, which also discusses the dangers of drinking parties and of drink generally.

Since life includes rest as well as activity, and in this is included leisure and amusement, there seems here also to be a kind of intercourse which is tasteful; there is such a thing as saying- and again listening to- what one should and as one should. The kind of people one is speaking or listening to will also make a difference.

We turn, however, specifically to the sort of joking that is most virtuous, as well as to the defects. 

Evidently here also there is both an excess and a deficiency as compared with the mean. Those who carry humour to excess are thought to be vulgar buffoons, striving after humour at all costs, and aiming rather at raising a laugh than at saying what is becoming and at avoiding pain to the object of their fun; while those who can neither make a joke themselves nor put up with those who do are thought to be boorish and unpolished. But those who joke in a tasteful way are called ready-witted, which implies a sort of readiness to turn this way and that; for such sallies are thought to be movements of the character, and as bodies are discriminated by their movements, so too are characters. The ridiculous side of things is not far to seek, however, and most people delight more than they should in amusement and in jesting, and so even buffoons are called ready-witted because they are found attractive; but that they differ from the ready-witted man, and to no small extent, is clear from what has been said.

Aristotle doesn't give the impression that jesting was especially dangerous, which it has been in many times and places. Many a duel has begun over a jest over wine, or ale, or mead, or whiskey, and all these thousands of years. That this is not one of his concerns here is remarkable. 

Past the jump break, we get a judgment that is of potential contemporary relevance.

Wouldn't Want to Hurt Feelings

There's a paywall, but here's the relevant bit: 

Police officers told a shopkeeper to take down a sign calling shoplifters “scumbags” because it could cause offence, sparking a free speech row. 

Rob Davies put up a handwritten note in his shop after repeated thefts that read: “Due to scumbags shoplifting, please ask for assistance to open cabinets.” But officers from North Wales Police attended his retro shop in Wrexham and told him to take down the sign as it could cause offence. 

The free speech row comes after JD Vance, the US vice-president, told David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, that the West had become “too comfortable with censoring” and warned the UK not to go down the “very dark path” of censorship.

I suppose proper scumbags might take offense at being compared with such petty criminals. Not likely to sue over it, though.

DC Takeover Likely to be Popular

My work takes me to DC several times a year -- indeed, I'll be back there next month. I imagine it will be a much more peaceful place than previously, with somewhat less of the aroma of marijuana. 

Unlike some of the contested stretches of Presidential authority, this one is perfectly within the rules. It will be psychologically interesting; the citizens of DC are unusually opposed to Trump, both in scale and intensity, because of their frequent personal or family relationship with the gigantic Federal bureaucracies that DOGE and other Trump efforts are slightly shrinking or, occasionally, dismantling. However, the collapse of crime rates likely to occur in this 30 day period will be noticeable, and it may have some lingering effects as those arrested for things like firearms possession are kept off the streets (for a few days, probably, as the DC attorney may not be willing to prosecute them; but potentially for five years or more, if they are prohibited felons in possession and the Federal government is able to bring charges).

This action does not constitute martial law, but even outright martial law is often popular for the same reasons -- at least at first. 

In September 1972 Marcos declared martial law, claiming that it was the last defense against the rising disorder.... Initial public reaction to martial law was mostly favourable except in Muslim areas of the south, where a separatist rebellion, led by the MNLF, broke out in 1973....

Under martial law the regime was able to reduce violent urban crime, collect unregistered firearms, and suppress communist insurgency in some areas. 

This one requires Congressional approval once they're back from vacation if it is to go on for more than 30 days after they return to session, so it is in a very different class from Marcos' action. Still, it's likely to achieve similar effects for as long as it lasts. 

UPDATE: Liz Peek: 

The New York Times wrote, “President Trump is not the only elected leader to deploy National Guard troops in response to a supposed crime wave that many have questioned. In March 2024, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, a Democrat, announced that she would deploy 750 members of the National Guard to New York’s subway system.” Though the “paper of record” was quick to point out that the circumstances were different, the main conclusion? It worked. Subway crime dropped 27 percent in the 12 months following the troops’ deployment.

The same will happen in DC.

Likelier than not, yes. 

Nicomachean Ethics IV.7

Continuing with the social virtues:

The mean opposed to boastfulness is found in almost the same sphere; and this also is without a name. It will be no bad plan to describe these states as well; for we shall both know the facts about character better if we go through them in detail, and we shall be convinced that the virtues are means if we see this to be so in all cases. In the field of social life those who make the giving of pleasure or pain their object in associating with others have been described; let us now describe those who pursue truth or falsehood alike in words and deeds and in the claims they put forward. The boastful man, then, is thought to be apt to claim the things that bring glory, when he has not got them, or to claim more of them than he has, and the mock-modest man on the other hand to disclaim what he has or belittle it, while the man who observes the mean is one who calls a thing by its own name, being truthful both in life and in word, owning to what he has, and neither more nor less. Now each of these courses may be adopted either with or without an object. But each man speaks and acts and lives in accordance with his character, if he is not acting for some ulterior object. And falsehood is in itself mean and culpable, and truth noble and worthy of praise. Thus the truthful man is another case of a man who, being in the mean, is worthy of praise, and both forms of untruthful man are culpable, and particularly the boastful man.

This is a classically pagan approach to the virtues that Christianity will tend to alter in favor of modesty and humility. The advice here is what Chesterton described as 'neither swagger nor grovel,' but speak the truth about what you deserve -- neither more nor less. Chesterton described this as a limit; the Church says, he tells us, "Here you can swagger and there you can grovel," which he describes as an emancipation.

Yet there is something to be said for the Greek position, is there not? Nor is it inconsistent with what our own Texan99 was recently offering as Jesus' advice to 'let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

Let us discuss them both, but first of all the truthful man. We are not speaking of the man who keeps faith in his agreements, i.e. in the things that pertain to justice or injustice (for this would belong to another virtue), but the man who in the matters in which nothing of this sort is at stake is true both in word and in life because his character is such. But such a man would seem to be as a matter of fact equitable. For the man who loves truth, and is truthful where nothing is at stake, will still more be truthful where something is at stake; he will avoid falsehood as something base, seeing that he avoided it even for its own sake; and such a man is worthy of praise. He inclines rather to understate the truth; for this seems in better taste because exaggerations are wearisome.

Not immoral or vicious: wearisome. Yet we are talking about social virtues that enable us to have characters worthy of friendship, which enables the great goods of social harmony, successful politics, and a happy life with friends. It is in fact quite virtuous not to be wearisome.  

He who claims more than he has with no ulterior object is a contemptible sort of fellow (otherwise he would not have delighted in falsehood), but seems futile rather than bad; but if he does it for an object, he who does it for the sake of reputation or honour is (for a boaster) not very much to be blamed, but he who does it for money, or the things that lead to money, is an uglier character (it is not the capacity that makes the boaster, but the purpose; for it is in virtue of his state of character and by being a man of a certain kind that he is boaster); as one man is a liar because he enjoys the lie itself, and another because he desires reputation or gain. Now those who boast for the sake of reputation claim such qualities as will praise or congratulation, but those whose object is gain claim qualities which are of value to one's neighbours and one's lack of which is not easily detected, e.g. the powers of a seer, a sage, or a physician. For this reason it is such things as these that most people claim and boast about; for in them the above-mentioned qualities are found.

It's surprising to see 'physician' on that list for us, but recall once again that the Greeks didn't distinguish between 'medicine' and 'poison' in their language. The science was at a more primitive stage; the claimed physician was no better than a claimant to being a seer. (There is a parallel I see very often these days; I know several women I grew up with who are now running businesses claiming to do medium work to talk to your beloved dead for you, or to perform 'energetic healing' whatever that is supposed to mean.)

Mock-modest people, who understate things, seem more attractive in character; for they are thought to speak not for gain but to avoid parade; and here too it is qualities which bring reputation that they disclaim, as Socrates used to do. Those who disclaim trifling and obvious qualities are called humbugs and are more contemptible; and sometimes this seems to be boastfulness, like the Spartan dress; for both excess and great deficiency are boastful. But those who use understatement with moderation and understate about matters that do not very much force themselves on our notice seem attractive. And it is the boaster that seems to be opposed to the truthful man; for he is the worse character.

Whether Socrates was mock-modest or really modest is hard to tell from the sources. He really does seem to have been perplexed about several problems he discussed in detail; and while he appears proud of his ability to defeat Sophists in debate, his account of the people who really impressed him with their knowledge was a shoemaker who wasn't allowed in the Agora. Whatever you wanted to say about Simon the Shoemaker, he only claimed that he knew how to make shoes: and he did! Protagoras and Gorgias and the rest claimed they knew how to make virtuous and successful men, and they couldn't even explain what the virtues were in a way that would stand up to examination. 

Neither could Socrates, of course; as we have seen, Aristotle thinks that Socrates was basically wrong because of a belief that virtue was reducible to a form of knowledge. Socrates, however, was honest about the fact that he couldn't; his only claim was that he didn't really know anything at all. 

Stark staring madness

I know it's the NYT, but this opinion piece reads like raving lunacy.

For Israelis, the reality is this: Israel, a flawed but real and vital country, is fighting an evil terrorist group that has the power to stop the horror at any time, but hates Israel enough to persist and does not care enough for its own people to stop.

Yes, for me, too.

Yet what is happening in Gaza speaks for itself. People are starving, and as in any other crisis, the most vulnerable in society — the elderly, newborns, people with pre-existing conditions — are harmed first.

That "yet" is carrying a lot of weight. It's a crisis caused by some profoundly evil people. No one else on Earth has any idea how to fix it. And the conclusion is . . . who exactly should self-immolate in an utterly hopeless effort to end it? I know the answer will shock you.

Even after almost two years of war, Israel lacks a coherent humanitarian strategy for Gaza, switching aid on and off based on the calculations of Mr. Netanyahu, who is trying to balance keeping the political support of his right-wing coalition partners, who want the war to continue, and international pressure to stop it.

Of course. Israel has failed to develop a coherent humanitarian strategy to address the insoluble problem of barbarians at its gates desiring Israeli rape and murder more than their own survival.

After several hundred thousand tons of food aid entered Gaza during the second cease-fire, according to Israel — enough for several months, by World Food Program projections — Israel’s decision to cut off all aid in March pushed the strip into the dire crisis it faces today. Israel said that it hoped the blockade would disrupt Hamas’s ability to profit from the goods coming in, weaken the group’s governance and pressure it to capitulate in cease-fire negotiations.

OK, sounds reasonable so far, if the priority is not to end the conflict but to relieve the suffering of the people most devoted to supporting the conflict.

This was not just a morally wrong choice — humanitarian aid should not be a political issue — but a strategically foolish one that misread both Hamas and the international community. A humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was never going to force Hamas’s hand. The group needs very few resources to operate: just enough to continue to hold the hostages, carry out guerrilla attacks and continue making statements to influence public opinion.

But no, it was morally insufficient, and also feckless, because Hamas is invulnerable to the suffering of Gazans and can easily subsist on what it steals from their aid, not only to eat but to fund its murderous program.

In May Israel sought to sidestep the U.N. assistance system, which it relentlessly criticized as ineffectual and compromised by Hamas with the poorly planned and even more poorly implemented system run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. But after months of no aid, stocks in Gaza had run down and prices had soared; the foundation’s four distribution sites were almost immediately overwhelmed and exploited by profiteers, not to mention dangerous to access, with numerous casualties reported in lines for aid. The lack of aid has led to the death of more than 210 people by malnutrition since the start of the war, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health.

So Israel tried the morally approved route again, but no dice, it wasn't enough, so everything is its fault again.

The Israeli-American plan to quadruple the foundation’s distribution centers will hardly address the grave situation. Even today the foundation faces logistical challenges, and the boxes they issue, both in terms of food quantity and diversity, don’t translate easily to nutritious meals.

Israel and the U.S. try quadrupling the aid. No dice again, because of logistical challenges and quibbles over how easy and nutritious the meals were.

Despite denials of the extent of the grim reality in Gaza, Israel established fixed humanitarian corridors, conducted and facilitated airdrops and allowed in small amounts of commercial traffic and daytime pauses in operations in some areas to allow for aid delivery.

But who cares.

Israelis must look beyond their own prism of pain and trauma, ignore the double standards at play and recognize the harsh reality in Gaza and Israel’s responsibility for it. Israel needs the courage to see what it sees. Then it must act.

No one else needs to solve this crisis. It's up to Israel to look behind its own pain and the evident double standards at play.

Epstein grand jury materials withheld

The DOJ has begun petitioning federal judges to release Epstein grand jury records, so far to no avail. Judge Engelmayer in the S.D.N.Y. is one who recently denied a request, finding that "The Justice Department’s “entire premise—that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes, or the Government’s investigation into them—is demonstrably false.” Engelmayer is a 2011 Obama appointee and, from his record, an intelligent and conscientious judge in the old-fashioned liberal line, with a strong traditional focus on the Bill of Rights.

Nicomachean Ethics IV.6

The next several sections are on how to be socially virtuous. It is key to Aristotle's view of the human good that we have positive interactions with each other. I have already mentioned once in this commentary Aristotle's explanation from Politics III of his ideal for a good state: "a community [of] family connections, brotherhoods, common sacrifices, amusements [which] are created by friendship.... The end of the state is the good life, and.... the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life." That provides us with a standard against which to judge any state. 

Thus, how to be the kind of person who can build and maintain friendships is an important ethical concern. It is also a political concern. (It is one of the places where our current politics is suffering some difficulty.) It is important that good men know how to make and keep friends.

In gatherings of men, in social life and the interchange of words and deeds, some men are thought to be obsequious, viz. those who to give pleasure praise everything and never oppose, but think it their duty 'to give no pain to the people they meet'; while those who, on the contrary, oppose everything and care not a whit about giving pain are called churlish and contentious. That the states we have named are culpable is plain enough, and that the middle state is laudable- that in virtue of which a man will put up with, and will resent, the right things and in the right way; but no name has been assigned to it, though it most resembles friendship. For the man who corresponds to this middle state is very much what, with affection added, we call a good friend. 

It is not surprising to learn that a friend will put up with you; but only so far! It is surprising to learn that a friend is meant to resent things you do to them -- but only the right ones. Yet in this way honor is maintained, and the friendship can thus be between men of honor.  

Aristotle goes on to distinguish this from true friendship:

But the state in question differs from friendship in that it implies no passion or affection for one's associates; since it is not by reason of loving or hating that such a man takes everything in the right way, but by being a man of a certain kind. For he will behave so alike towards those he knows and those he does not know, towards intimates and those who are not so, except that in each of these cases he will behave as is befitting; for it is not proper to have the same care for intimates and for strangers, nor again is it the same conditions that make it right to give pain to them.

He more explicitly makes clear the relationship of honor to this sort of relationship, which is like friendship in the way that the Politics claims that social relations are a species of friendship.

Now we have said generally that he will associate with people in the right way; but it is by reference to what is honourable and expedient that he will aim at not giving pain or at contributing pleasure. For he seems to be concerned with the pleasures and pains of social life; and wherever it is not honourable, or is harmful, for him to contribute pleasure, he will refuse, and will choose rather to give pain; also if his acquiescence in another's action would bring disgrace, and that in a high degree, or injury, on that other, while his opposition brings a little pain, he will not acquiesce but will decline. He will associate differently with people in high station and with ordinary people, with closer and more distant acquaintances, and so too with regard to all other differences, rendering to each class what is befitting, and while for its own sake he chooses to contribute pleasure, and avoids the giving of pain, he will be guided by the consequences, if these are greater, i.e. honour and expediency. For the sake of a great future pleasure, too, he will inflict small pains.

The man who attains the mean, then, is such as we have described, but has not received a name; of those who contribute pleasure, the man who aims at being pleasant with no ulterior object is obsequious, but the man who does so in order that he may get some advantage in the direction of money or the things that money buys is a flatterer; while the man who quarrels with everything is, as has been said, churlish and contentious. And the extremes seem to be contradictory to each other because the mean is without a name.

I can't help but notice the similarity to the first section of the Havamal, the Gestabáttr or 'guest house.' Not only Aristotle but Odin raises these concerns as significant considerations for good men. It is an interesting exercise to compare and contrast the advice given in the Havamal with the EN in this and the following sections, but as this is a solely a commentary on the EN I will leave that as an exercise for the reader. 

O, Nova Scotia

Apparently Nova Scotia, which is about the size of New Hampshire, has simply ordered its population not to go into the woods to hike or camp this fall. There's a fine of twenty-five grand if you do so and get caught. 

UPDATE: A helpful demonstration of the difference between "the woods" and "not the woods." 

Continuing the Discussion on the Perils of Government

The discussion on the Melodrama post below has grown to 52 comments as of this morning, and since some of them are threaded it can be hard to find what the new comments are. Since it's so interesting to all of you -- as judged by the far-greater-than-usual number of comments -- I thought we might continue it this week in a new space. 

I'm going to start by trying to pick up on a thread of comments where Thomas D. and I were discussing Mexico and some historical analogs. I will lightly edit these comments for length and content; you can see the originals if you like in the original thread, but please respond here instead of there to ease the discussion.

As we enter the discussion, we were discussing a list of massacres in Mexico. It was part of a longer exchange on whether it is true that government is always the biggest threat; I think it always is potentially, and therefore should be restrained even when there are other key threats. Thomas was unsure about this and fielded spirited rebuttals. 

Grim: When we see actual genocides and democides worldwide, it is not criminal organizations but governments that carry them out. As I've said before, in the bloody 20th century your own government was more likely to kill you than its enemies. The Nazis killed more Germans (and German nationals who didn't qualify as 'German enough') than even the Soviets did; the Soviets starved more of their own citizens than even the Nazis killed. The Japanese militarist government did horrible things to the Chinese people, but not nearly so many Chinese died in all of the horrors of the Japanese occupation as died in Mao's "Great Leap Forward."

There are some limit cases where we can debate whether the organization is a sort-of government, as you noted before. The Rwandan militias were sort of government, sort of a riot that the government allowed to go on rampages. Hamas is a currently relevant example; they are in some sense both a government and a terrorist organization that engages in criminal activity (but, to be honest, so does everyone's government -- the United States was tied up in some of those Mexican military murders, and even in some of the cartel ones...).

A criminal organization is organized for the purpose of crime, which is to say money and power; a government is organized for the same purpose, except that they also claim the power to define what counts as crime. Sometimes they might slip one into the other, but government has by its nature more potential to harm, which is why the worst actual harms come from them.  

By the way, not on the list of Mexican massacres is the largest massacre in American history: the Goliad massacre by Santa Anna's forces. More than four hundred prisoners were executed by what claimed, at that time, to be their government; it shows up on our list instead because of one of those successful revolutions you were mentioning. 

Thomas Doubting: Your point about the 20th century democides and genocides is well-taken, but let me point out the private violence that brought much of that about. The Soviet Union and China were both the result of successful Marxist revolutions. The Nazis and Italian fascists had their private armies, the SA & SS and the Blackshirts, who helped them attain political power. The Japanese militarists were assisted by young men who assassinated successful businessmen for promoting capitalism and any politician who openly advocated for democracy. In all of these cases, these nations were pushed toward totalitarianism and militarism by private violence.

In addition, the new governments of the USSR, China, and Nazi Germany came about in part as political movements focused on internal enemies by private powers, which, once they could, took on the mantle of government to continue their pursuit of their internal enemies. It is no wonder such governments killed so many of their own. Given the strong-man totalitarianism, these governments acted much like the private organizations of individual men: Stalin, Mao, Hitler. I don't know if their examples can be generalized to all governments.

Grim: Likewise, your point about the private armies striving for control of the government -- the Nazis versus the Communists in Germany is a good example -- demonstrates that they themselves understood the value of coming to control it instead of being a private army. Coupled with the further proof of the additional harm such forces were able to accomplish after winning control of the government, I think it is a compelling argument for my position.