A sign hangs from the wall in the Student Center, proclaiming in all its glory that we seek a "Trustworthy Community." And a good goal it is, too, for there is a rising component of the student body that has little or no respect for that most important of society's tenets: trust and uncompromised respect for reliability.
Think this to yourself: how many members of this community -- how many among all the parents, students, teachers, alumni, and staff -- are there, to whom you could lend ten dollars and expect, without a qualm, to have it returned within a week? Do not count your friends only; count everyone in the community, all five hundred or five thousand or, perhaps, your neighbors too. How many can you truly trust with money, time, effort, or any other commodity of the common man?
A few might say that this trend toward thievery, either out of jest or otherwise, is a natural extension of the natural law that each man seeks his own self-interest. To these I propose a simple argument. Consider the country, consider all the people in the nation. As part of an implicit "social contract" (Rousseau, 1761, The Social Contract), every member of this society has contributed a small part of his individuality, his individual sovereignty, to the common good; in the best interest of all, each person has allowed a select few to coordinate the defense of his interests and those of his progeny. Since the Civil War, it has been clear that this individual sovereignty is so much treasured by the national government that it is virtually impossible to take it back; nonetheless, it was once given, and in giving it, each man has recognized that the common good will to some degree further his interests. Thus, the sum of all those parts, coordinated, can produce a greater standard of living than each for itself. In this way, then, in similar recognition of the common good, no man should in this society steal, for it is in his ultimate interest to maintain the laws of property, and to maintain that the belongings of each man are his and his only, and not to steal those. For example, if one steals a car from another, this harms society (by degrading trust, causing cost in time and effort to law enforcement and other officials, decreasing consumers' expectations, and overall causing a drop in the standard of living), and thus indirectly harms the thief. Over time, this harm will accumulate to such a horrifying level as we see in our country's high level of crime.
Perhaps you should remember, and remember well, the words of the headmaster, as he noted the name-calling and the insults that are so prevalent among certain groups of students. These too are relevant to the issue of trust, for there is a trust implicitly made among the members of the society, with reference to the fact that no one shall unnecessarily insult anyone else; there should be no name-calling, for the simple reason that it destroys the trust among the members of society, a horrible consequence to any democratic institutions.
As an extension of this discussion of trust, let us consider the importance of one's word, as a binding statement of fact. When this paper came out, the very first issue stated that it would be a weekly. However, a staffer at Menlo doubted my word, saying that "I saw that, but I didn't think it'd actually happen." This denotes the lack of trust among the community's members: in the best state, the words of each individual could be trusted, increasing efficiency and productivity through reducing the need for redundant checks, yet in Menlo's degraded society, it has become impossible for anyone to fully trust in any other person's word. For some further examples, let me consider an event I consider particularly relevant this week. The Model United Nations club attends conferences twice a year, with a few extra meetings for organizational and research purposes; all members were notified of every single date that attendance would be required. Each one is ABSOLUTELY CENTRAL to maintaining or upgrading the reputation of Menlo's delegations -- at least one person must fill every single position on each delegation. Each member notifies the organizers of each delegation whether they can attend in October, in preparation for them in December and March. That word is extremely important, since each person that drops out leaves a position that must be filled at any cost. When, in the past week, I saw two people quit, in addition to a third the week before that, it became well nigh impossible to fill the positions, and as a result THE ENTIRE DELEGATION WILL BE IMPACTED. In this way, the untrustworthy and irresponsible practices of the few decrease the opportunity
and the value of the labor of the many. Perhaps every student should take into account the fact that one's word is sacred and must not be broken: if you promise me a report, that report must be submitted, and it must be done on time. This is not because the report is in your interest, not because you have time and therefore are able to make that report, not because you need me to have the report in order to secure favor -- it is for one reason, and one reason only, which is that your word is sacred and must not be compromised.
In conflicts of interest in this respect, that is, when one's word is given for two conflicting activities, or organizational decisions which interfere with each other, it must be made clear that the earlier always takes precedence. There is no "maybe" or "if" or "possibly" here, and there should not be. No matter how much pain, suffering, or other result may occur, the earlier of the two takes precedence since it was given with the greater sincerity, prior to the conflict, and thus still stands regardless of the conflict.
These are moral law, and, if I am not mistaken, must be universal in order to maintain a society that is both efficient and productive. They must be universal so that certain items are not variable; they must be universal so that all can live in confidence of personal and organizational security. Perhaps we should all take these into better account, in order to better guarantee liberty and freedom of opportunity to all.
By John Earl