Part XXIV - Honour of Thieves

This is part of a series discussing The Theory of the Leisure Class, by Thorstein Veblen.  Chapter Six is titled Pecuniary Canons of Taste.

Veblen reiterates that the reason people participate in conspicuous consumption and waste their money at ever increasing levels is not consciously to out-do one another, but to live up to the expectations of their peers; to fit in and be accepted.  In spending money for show, he lists areas that may be neglected, such as ‘articles of underclothing, some articles of food, kitchen utensils, and other household apparatus designed for service rather than for evidence’.  

He then makes the worrying statement that society's rules concerning an acceptable standard of living affect more than just a person's economic life. They also influence ‘the sense of duty, the sense of beauty, the sense of utility, the sense of devotional or ritualistic fitness, and the scientific sense of truth’.  He expounds on these various ideas in later chapters.

As an example, he discusses the legal system whose job it is to admonish persons who deviate from a certain code of behaviour. Early on, Veblen pointed out that the ownership of property was a foundation of the acquisition of wealth and position by the upper classes. Even today it could be said that the ownership of property is a sacred concept. It is generally the motivation of theft to raise one's status.    

Back in 1899 Veblen makes the observation that it is better to be a big thief than a petty one, because

“The thief or swindler who has gained great wealth by his delinquency has a better chance than the small thief of escaping the rigorous penalty of the law and some good repute accrues to him from his increased wealth and from his spending the irregularly acquired possessions in a seemly manner. A well-bred expenditure of his booty especially appeals with great effect to persons of a cultivated sense of the proprieties, and goes far to mitigate the sense of moral turpitude with which his dereliction is viewed by them."

He goes on to say that if a man is seen to be stealing ‘only’ because he wished to provide a ‘decent’ life for his wife (who was brought up in the lap of luxury) the theft would be viewed not only as being under extenuating circumstances, but practically as an honourable act. The idea of holding thieves in awe '...is peculiarly true where the dereliction involves an appreciable predatory or piratical element’. Further, ‘…all that considerable body of morals that clusters about the concept of an inviolable ownership is itself a psychological precipitate of the traditional meritoriousness of wealth.'

In short, Veblen thinks society was pretty much blinded by money and the person who had it, regardless of how they got it, would command some level of respect. I'm thinking that there was probably some truth to this. I'm still trying to decide if there is still some truth to this idea. On one hand I'm thinking about the rescue of the banks; on the other hand I'm thinking Bernie Madoff. I haven't decided yet.

What do you think?