

When I was a kid growing up in Boissevain, Manitoba, my mother would occasionally send me to the bakery to get bread. I was about 5 at the time but able to read.
The baker had various slogans on the wall behind him. I’ll never forget one of them, and from an early age I made it a maxim that I would live by. (It seems that the only times I remember breaking it were against my brother.)
The maxim was, “He who seeks revenge digs two graves.” He attributed it to Confucius.
At age 5, I understood.
I thought of that when reading Don Boudreaux’s latest article for the American Institute for Economic Research. It’s titled “No COVID Tribunals.” I recommend reading the whole thing.
Notice that Don is not saying we should do nothing to hold people to account. He writes:
Nor do I oppose formal hearings that aim to expose the truth about the COVID-era actions of government officials. While I worry that such hearings will, like COVID policies themselves, be infected with excessive politics and misunderstanding of science, as long as such hearings threaten no formal punishments or sanctions on officials found to have acted wrongly, the likelihood that such hearings will unearth and publicize important truths is high enough to warrant their occurrence.
I think that’s right.
By the way, as a result of choosing early in life not to be a vengeful person, I think I’m also a happier person. There are multiple ways to dig my own grave. There’s the literal way, of course. But another way is to obsess: “I’m going to get that so and so.” And that takes away from enjoying life and achieving.
Between 1978 and 1983, I went to 4 weekend long intensives given by the late psychologist Nathaniel Branden. I learned a lot. I probably learned the most from the first one, in Manhattan in early 1978. A lot of what we were dealing with was the ways we had been shaped, or misshaped, by our parents and teachers. Somehow in the discussion, the issue of “getting back at” parents or teachers or whoever came up. Branden said that there’s a Spanish saying that translates, “Living well is the best revenge.” That became part of my philosophy of life also. In fact, I used that in a graduation talk I gave in 1981 at the Carman high school from which I had graduated in 1967.
READER COMMENTS
Brandon Berg
Nov 12 2022 at 5:37am
Like most sayings attributed to Confucius in the Anglosphere, it’s unlikely to have actually originated with him. It appears to have come to us from Japan, as “Hito o norowaba ana futatsu” (if you curse someone, [dig] two holes.”
Notably, the Chinese Wiktionary entry for the Japanese phrase gives only a translation, with the closest Chinese equivalent given being 害人害己 (hài rén hài jî; hurt another, hurt yourself). This appears to come from a collection of unattributed proverbs.
John S
Nov 13 2022 at 8:57am
Thank you for your illuminating comment.
Zeke5123
Nov 12 2022 at 9:13am
If crimes were actually committed (eg Fauci perjured himself) would you change your mind?
David Henderson
Nov 12 2022 at 10:18am
Good question. I wouldn’t have to change my mind. I believe in prosecuting crimes (although i have exceptions, depending on the crime.) I don’t believe in making up crimes after the fact. And that was the gist of Don Boudreaux’s piece that I linked to.
James Anderson Merritt
Nov 17 2022 at 5:52pm
IIRC, Boudreaux also said that he was fine with legitimate prosecution of real crimes. I think you two fellows have it right.
David Henderson
Nov 18 2022 at 2:03pm
Thanks.
steve
Nov 12 2022 at 5:36pm
The revenge thing is something I ma trying to pass on. Having run our corporation for about 15 years I am retiring soon. You dont win every battle and in retrospect you will sometimes have to admit you were wrong. Trying for revenge all the time sours everything and I agree it makes people unhappy. I think my corollary is that the addiction to anger we have in our culture is pretty toxic. The constant anger turns to hate.
Steve
David Henderson
Nov 12 2022 at 5:49pm
Well said, Steve.
Michael Connell
Nov 13 2022 at 11:03am
Another way of saying the same thing. “Hate corrodes the vessel it is contained within.”
Joseph Sleckman
Nov 15 2022 at 5:10pm
Mr. Boudreaux’s argument reminds me of the question “When did you stop beating your wife”. As I interpret the article, he argues that he is against revenge in the form legal panels that could lead to putting Dr. Anthony Fauci behind bars, and fines that would bankrupt Dr. Birx and Governor Whitmer. But he nevertheless would find these punishments satisfying. It seems to me that his opposition to revenge, if so, does not flow from the wisdom of Confucius, but rather from pragmatic political considerations.
Don Boudreaux
Nov 16 2022 at 9:29am
Mr. Sleckman: My opposition is to holding lockdowners personally liable, under criminal or civil law, for their policy decisions. (Obviously, if in the course of their reign they violated any extant criminal or civil laws, then they should be held personally accountable for having done so.)
My warning might fairly be described as “pragmatic.” But contrary to what I think is your implication, the pragmatism here is not unwise, but wise. (Or so I believe it to be.) It is wise not to impose personal penalties under the law on government officials for their policy decisions. The reason is that, were we to do so, a very dangerous precedent would be set that would constrain government officials going forward in the policy choices they make. Nearly every time government changed hands from one party to another, persecution of the ousted officials would occur. We’d be completely transformed from a constitutional republic into a banana one.
Is the following calculation pragmatic?: Sacrificing the satisfaction that would come from personally punishing lockdowners for their calamitous policy decisions is not worth the likely harm from the newly created precedent. Again, I’m not utterly opposed to using that term as used in this way. But I think the better term here is “wise.”
Thomas Sowell warns against “the quest for cosmic justice.” If an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity governed human political and legal affairs, I’d trust that deity to punish as it sees fit. Such a godly creature is fitted to mete out cosmic justice. But we mortal humans are not. We must beware not to allow today’s fury, no matter how justified it might be in ethics, to unleash political and legal precedents that we’ll regret. I think that such prudence is the course of wisdom.
Joseph Sleckman
Nov 16 2022 at 7:00pm
Good morning Mr. Boudreaux. Thank you for your reply
In your question about a pragmatic calculation, you use the phrase “….personally punishing lockdowners for their calamitous policy decisions….” . You are inserting a statement of belief into this exercise. Although the article argues against trials and punishment, it serves as a vehicle to lay out charges against policymakers, certain physicians, and the governor of Michigan.
I should add that I am a retired physician. I was in the field of Rheumatology, which dealt with autoimmune disease to a certain extent. When you say “misunderstanding of science”, what evidence is that phrase based on? Also, why did you have a photo of a jail cell at the beginning of your article? Seems unwise to me.
One of my favorite lines is “Would not that you be old before you are wise”. So spoke the court fool to King Lear.
David Henderson
Nov 16 2022 at 9:47am
You write:
Don Boudreaux has given an excellent answer that I can’t improve on. I would just add that his wisdom is the same as the wisdom of Confucius. Both argue that bad consequences will follow for the person who seeks revenge.
Joseph Sleckman
Nov 16 2022 at 7:13pm
I forgot to add: Although pragmatism is not a very poetic word, I still believe that is the best choice to describe the nature of the argument.
Comments are closed.