Chapter dzǺ: Economics and Principles ȂȄȄbe “realistic,” to “get along.” Ļose who conform out of cowardice or cal-
culation (to use Schoeck’s words) shun facing that fact; such a cognition
would be dissonant with their self-image as decent human beings. Ļey
have to adjust their cognitions. Ļey come to believe that conformity is
proper and moral, that the usurping power is worthy and its tactics hon-
orable. Ļe nonconformists pose an obstacle to this adjustment of cogni-
tions, so the adjustment proceeds until the collaborators can really believe
that the others are scoundrels. A further strand to the theory of cognitive
dissonance is ironic but understandable: the more nearly just barely ade-
quate was the inducement to collaborate, the stronger is the internal pres-
sure on the collaborator to adjust his cognitions until he believes, sincerely,
that he has lent his support to a worthy cause. No one likes to believe that
he has betrayed his principles for small stakes, although as Elliot Aronson
(ȀȈȆȁ) says, if a man sells out for a large amount of money, then he has
as many cognitions as dollars that are consonant with his having taken a
stand he does not really believe in.
For reasons like these, then, prospective resisters may decide not to
make the necessary sacrifice in the first place. Why not cultivate a kind of
stoicism instead?ȀȀWhy not sit back, possibly enjoying a free ride if other
people do raise the “justified fuss”?
Such passiveness is reinforced if people actually believe in “turning the
other cheek” and in not passing judgment on other people’s actions. Pas-
siveness can create external diseconomies by almost inviting repetition of
the wrongs tolerated. Ļere is such a thing as culpable blindness to evil.
Harold Macmillan had a point in saying of a certain British cabinet mem-
ber of theȀȈȂǿs who remained pacifistic in the face of the Nazi menace
that “he was a good man in the worst sense of the word” (quoted in Davis
ȀȈȆȄ, p.ȂȂȇ).
Let me be clear. I am not calling for promiscuous meddling. I am not
calling on everyone to go around hunting for misbehavior to condemn.
Instead, I am referring to the role of people directly acquainted with abuses.
Silent acquiescence on their part is no virtue.ȀȁStill, I would not say that
ȀȀIn effect, though not in so many words, this is the advice of such writers as Albert
Ellis (ȀȈȅȇ, esp. chap.ȀȂ), and, with Robert Harper (Ellis and HarperȀȈȅȀ), and Harry
Browne (ȀȈȆȃ), the best-selling amateur economist and gold bug.
ȀȁĻe Honor System at the University of Virginia depends on the willingness of stu-
dents who know of violations to accuse the offenders. Silence in such cases is considered
dishonorable, subversive of the system. Ļe system applies only to students, not to faculty
members and administrators.