Ealy – Indianapolis 1995

Report by Lenore Thomas Ealy of the Regional Meeting of the Philadelphia
Society

November 17-18, 1995

Indianapolis, Indiana

The treatment of "The Legacy of Pierre F. Goodrich" proved an apt topic for
discussion on a weekend in which the Philadelphia Society also took sad note
of the absence of Don Lipsett, who passed away October 30. Though it was
humorously pointed out on the first evening that our Commodore did not share
certain habits of Mr. Goodrich’s, the two gentlemen were yet both Hoosiers
whose lives were dedicated to the promotion of liberty and responsibility in
American life. In the Philadelphia Society and the Liberty Fund, respectively,
Don Lipsett and Pierre Goodrich gave life to two influential institutions devoted
to providing space for the discussion of themes important to the health of
American public life.

Saturday’s panel discussions in both theory and practice were tributes to the
best visions of both men. Organized by Bill Dennis, panel topics were: "Liberty
and the Problem of Human Nature," "Education and The Civil Society," and
"The Place of the Businessman in the Free Society."

Doug Den Uyl articulated the vision of education as civil society epitomized in
the programs of Goodrich’s Liberty Fund, and in the process described much
of what has contributed to the success of the Philadelphia Society. Both
institutions have considered education as a reflection on basic principles rather
than as mere scientific data-gathering. As a result, both institutions have
succeeded in modeling the civil conversation that must be a central feature if a
pluralistic America is to also be a civil society. Den Uyl suggested that civility
can promote human relationships where neither rivalry nor affection exists. In
light of the intense discussion of Nick Capaldi’s suggestions for higher
education in America, however, this concept needs further consideration.

Though the Philadelphia Society and the Liberty Fund both model the civil
conversation appropriate to a democratic-republican society, it is not the case
that these institutions neither foster affection nor give rise to rivalries. John Alvis
and Fred Miller, in respective presentations on Goodrich’s views on education
and human nature and on the philosophy of Aristotle, noted the "Problem of
Human Nature" in a free society. It is certain that both Lipsett and Goodrich
shared a keen awareness of human nature, of both the moral and intellectual
virtues and vices of humanity.

Though each sought to elicit the virtuous and ameliorate the vicious in different
ways, both were realists who recognized the fundamental limitations on human
knowledge. Both embraced as a working principle the proposition that
institutions must respond to human nature rather than try to remake it.

Nick Capaldi pointed out the disasters the modern world has witnessed as a
result of the misplaced effort to remake men for institutions rather than to make
institutions for men. Calling this utopian attempt the "Enlightenment project,"
Capaldi contrasted it to the process of humanist self-appraisal.

Capaldi stressed that the humanist attempt to gain insight on our ordinary
understanding of our beliefs and practices is conducive to and indeed necessary
for liberty and responsibility, while the attempt to transform our ordinary
understanding is destructive of ordered liberty. The one takes account of the
problem of human knowledge; the other tends to ignore it.

Capaldi indicated how American colleges and universities have increasingly
become politicized institutions seeking to transform rather to understand.

He then itemized several radical proposals for reform of higher education.

Capaldi’s suggestions included the advocacy of virtual schools, where students
might seek knowledge and understanding through the medium of electronic
communication. This proposal generated audience criticism that points to our
need further to understand the human desire not only for civility but also for the
affection, and rivalry, generated in human institutions. Stephen Tonsor observed
that the educational process often benefits from a master/apprentice
relationship; Eugene Meyer, that a desirable product of higher education is the
lifelong friendships that students make. This, and the concession from many
audience speakers (such as former university president John Howard) that
American higher education is in crisis, raised the comment from Barbara von
der Heydt that organizations such as the Philadelphia Society and the Liberty
Fund had been the institutions most positively influential in her own education.
This comment drew general applause, highlighting, I believe, the
accomplishments of Goodrich and Lipsett.

In the final panel session of the meeting, John Baden, Hans Eicholz, and Kim
Dennis discussed the implications of the problem of knowledge in the areas of
environmentalism, banking, and philanthropy. Baden noted that government
attempts to employ scientific management in environmental conservation have
ignored the problem of knowledge. Businessmen and landowners have local
knowledge of their environments and therefore are more likely to achieve
productive solutions; and Baden has sought to recognize entrepreneurs who,
like Goodrich, have taken responsibility for conservation and reclamation.

Though advocating a free-market approach to environmental conservation,
Baden recognizes that such an approach requires more independent effort on
the part of businessmen, and less obstruction from government, to invest
resources in conservation.

Eicholz’s presentation on the debate between free money and statism again
relied on an argument stemming from the belief that local knowledge is a
superior basis than scientific management for economic decision-making.

Eicholz offered a revised historical interpretation of free banking. The traditional
interpretation has implied that without central control banking has degenerated
(and will degenerate) into an unstable system. Eicholz argued to the contrary
that problems pointed to by advocates of statism, such as wildcat banking,
were themselves made worse by the confusion of market signals by central
planning. Economic stability is most natural and response to normal business
cycles less disruptive, urged Eicholz, when men remain free and responsible to
act on the assumption that market signals are trustworthy and not under the
arbitrary control of central planners.

Finally, Dennis raised concerns about government intrusion into the independent
sector. She pointed out that increasing numbers of dollars are being channeled
from the government to ostensibly "private charities."

Organizations such as the American Cancer Society, the AARP, and the
Children’s Defense Fund are highly subsidized by government grants, with the
result that these organizations are more advocacy groups than charities.

Dennis warned that recent proposals by Republicans to provide more tax-payer
dollars to true private charities will further corrupt the independent sector.
Government-awarded money comes with government strings attached and these
strings are likely to command and/or prohibit a proper local response to local
needs. The intrusion of government funding in the independent sector will have
the effect of turning institutional allegiance toward the political domain, much as
it has done in American higher education. Dennis reminds us that true charity
arises only from the individual heart and that "charitable" dollars disbursed by
government corrupt the very meaning and practice of charity.