Ozio

I'm reading Machiavelli for a project and came across one of his concepts that I think deserves more attention - ozio. Ozio is the term Machiavelli uses to describe ease, luxury, and comfort. So far so common. However, the interesting thing is that Machiavelli doesn't characterize ozio as leading to corruption, he characterizes it as being corruption. Put another way, there is no difference between being idle, comfortable and luxurious and being corrupt in his conception. Because people are naturally evil, in his view, comfort, luxury and idleness provide the ability to indulge their natural cruelty, rapaciousness, short-sightedness and pettiness that basically nobody can resist. In contrast to ozio, he proposes necessitas. This is being in danger, in difficulties, being uncomfortable in at least one way. Back against the wall, Machiavelli sees people rising to magnificent heights and becoming noble. 

To illustrate this principle, imagine two scenarios where three people are locked in a small space for an extended period. Example one, a comfortable minivan transporting a small family on a long trip to shop at a Neiman Marcus 300 miles away from home. Example two, Apollo 13, suddenly without oxygen, partially exploded, and hurtling along at several thousand mph halfway between the moon and earth. 

In example one, according to Machiavelli, we would expect to see passive aggression, petty sniping, selfishness and complaining. In example two, we actually did see three people rise to incredible heights of courage, inventiveness and teamwork. 

EDIT - However, Machiavelli thinks you can be prosperous without becoming corrupt by using the prosperity to do "hard" things rather than "easy" things. This is self-imposed necessitas and Machiavelli thinks it's possible  because of his study of the Roman Empire which, he thinks, remained virtuous for a couple centuries after it became prosperous. /EDIT.

This got me thinking, wondering if Machiavelli was correct to dismiss comfort and luxury as corruption incarnate and not just a path leading to corruption. Machiavelli recommends using the law to artificially create harships and thus avoid ozio, so let's see how that would work in practice. 

Imagine for a moment that the State of Florida purchased all citizens' automobiles at a fair market price and mandated replacing them with one of three alternatives (or walking):
1. A 3 cylinder Caterham 7 replica.
2. A Toyota Wigo base model.
3. A Kia Bongo.

(I picked these because they are the least comfortable, least luxurious new cars I could think of that still have the capability to serve as, respectively, economical city cars, useful family cars and utility vehicles.)

 

How would Florida improve if this happened in your opinion? (I can think of several things that would get much better!)

"Two more weeks of confinement," the zampolit said, stirring his tea.

"The Americans do this for two months, Ivan. Of course, their submarines are far more comfortable."

"You want to cruise for two months?" Putin asked.

"I have done it on diesel [sic] submarines.  A submarine belongs at sea, Ivan.  Our mission is to strike fear into the hearts of the imperialists.  We do not accomplish this tied up in our barn at Polyarnyy most of the time,  but we cannot stay at sea any longer because any period over two weeks and the crew loses efficiency.  In two weeks this collection of children will be a mob of numbed robots." Ramius was counting on that.

"And we could solve this by having capitalist luxuries?" Putin sneered.

"A true Marxist is objective, Comrade Political Officer," Ramius chided, savouring this last argument with Putin.  "Objectively, that which aids us in carrying out our mission is good, that which hinders us is bad. Adversity is supposed to hone one's spirit and skill, not dull them.  Just being aboard a submarine is hardship enough, is it not?"

"Not for you, Marko." Putin grinned.

In reply to DaewooOfDeath :

I can think of no more perfect 3 car garage then the one you propose. 

Wigo, Bongo, Cat-er-ham!  Rallying cry of the new Florida political movement trying to get seniors out of any vehicle that lets them believe they are still capable of driving!

While giving all due respect to Niccolo M., I think we have to have some respect for 500 years of progress, too.  Back then, wearing a hair shirt was a sign of piety; today, it's a sign that you are a serious weirdo and really need to get a grip.  Call me effete if you want, but if I'm driving through a blizzard I want to do it with a functioning heater and defroster and heated seats, not to mention a heated steering wheel if I can get it.  Bring on the ozio, and cut down on the avoidable irritants so I can concentrate better and get home safely.

Stealthtercel said:

While giving all due respect to Niccolo M., I think we have to have some respect for 500 years of progress, too.  Back then, wearing a hair shirt was a sign of piety; today, it's a sign that you are a serious weirdo and really need to get a grip.  Call me effete if you want, but if I'm driving through a blizzard I want to do it with a functioning heater and defroster and heated seats, not to mention a heated steering wheel if I can get it.  Bring on the ozio, and cut down on the avoidable irritants so I can concentrate better and get home safely.

 

Interesting. Per capita deaths in auto accidents are almost flat from the 80s and only marginally better than the 60s. Why?

(Safety highways didn't work either, incidentally.)

In reply to Stealthtercel :

And I recently spent a good amount of money to go on a sled dog trip and travel though the snow the way they did before they had cars, much less cars with heaters. Imagine that. 

And I want a Caterham too. I really want a Caterham, or better yet, an original Lotus 7.

In reply to DaewooOfDeath :

Based only on what I'm reading in the OP:

1) If we overcome necessitas to achieve greatness, that will elevate us into a state of ozio.

2) If we live in a perpetual state of necessitas, but are not able to overcome it and achieve greatness, we will fall into a state of ozio.

3) If we live in a perpetual state of ozio, we are already in a state of ozio.

Therefore, it cannot be avoided... All roads lead to ozio.

Government mandated necessitas, such as in the automotive example, falls under example 2. It will not ultimately reduce ozio, it will merely trade one form of it for another... And thus make us no less corrupt.

.

Alternatively, as nocones so kindly demonstrated: One person's ozio is another's necessitas, and ones person's necessitas is another's ozio.

M. "may" have been a bit over the top with some of his thinking, but he really did have a better understand of human nature than the ... Oh wait. Can't go there on here 

The jump over to cars is way to deep for me, so I got nothin'

DaewooOfDeath said:

Per capita deaths in auto accidents are almost flat from the 80s and only marginally better than the 60s. 

From what I am seeing: On a per capita basis, we look to be well under 1/2 from the majority of the 60's, around half from the beginning of the 80's, and under 2/3 from the end of the 80's, with a rather strongly correlated downward overall trend since the mid-60's... And that's not even factoring in the massive increase in miles traveled. So I can't say that I agree with your definitions of 'almost flat' and 'marginally better'.

DaewooOfDeath said:

 

Interesting. Per capita deaths in auto accidents are almost flat from the 80s and only marginally better than the 60s. Why?

(Safety highways didn't work either, incidentally.)

Human behavior.

People will tend to work to the limits of the "system" they are confined to.  E.g. anti-lock disc brakes make for far safer braking than non-ABS drum brakes, but, as drivers explore the limits of their "system" they soon adjust to the ability to brake far later and better in adverse conditions and partially counter act those gains.  Want to drive super safe?  Drive a car with really bad brakes (as long as you know they are bad of course).

Obviously, safe drivers will always be generally safe, but aggressive drivers will always find a way to be unsafe.

Also, improvements in crash safety have been likely heavily counter acted by higher performance vehicles in general (higher speed crashes) and higher traffic density.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Stealthtercel :

And I recently spent a good amount of money to go on a sled dog trip and travel though the snow the way they did before they had cars, much less cars with heaters. Imagine that. 

And I want a Caterham too. I really want a Caterham, or better yet, an original Lotus 7.

I think this is exactly what Machiavelli had in mind - self imposed hardship as a way to be prosperous and avoid corruption.

Driven5 said:

In reply to DaewooOfDeath :

Based only on what I'm reading in the OP:

1) If we overcome necessitas to achieve greatness, that will elevate us into a state of ozio.

2) If we live in a perpetual state of necessitas, but are not able to overcome it and achieve greatness, we will fall into a state of ozio.

3) If we live in a perpetual state of ozio, we are already in a state of ozio.

Therefore, it cannot be avoided... All roads lead to ozio.

Government mandated necessitas, such as in the automotive example, falls under example 2. It will not ultimately reduce ozio, it will merely trade one form of it for another... And thus make us no less corrupt.

.

Alternatively, as nocones so kindly demonstrated: One person's ozio is another's necessitas, and ones person's necessitas is another's ozio.

The cycle you describe is certainly possible, but it's not inevitable. One could, out of a state of necessitas, become wealthy and use that money to buy everything in the Louis Vuiton catalogue (ozio) or one could use that money to train MMA with Francis Ngannou (self-imposed necessitas). One could buy a new Rolls Royce or one could buy the tools and training necessary to MAKE a Rolls Royce in ones garage. Etc.

In reply to Driven5 :

I got my inf0rmation from a combination of the National Center for Health Statistics and this article, which claims traffic fatalities are up during the corona thing: Emptier streets but more reckless driving during coronavirus outbreak - ABC News (go.com)

As for improvements per mile - driving more would seem to be an undesirable response to greater comfort, wouldn't it?

The only way we would ever rid the world of corruption would be to rid it of corrupt people.

Everyone should seek to be a comfortable as possible. Use your comfort to cause harm to others, you gotta go.

If I was in the hypothetical Florida from OP, my first mission would be to rid the world of whoever thought we should be limited to those cars.

TheRX7Project said:

The only way we would ever rid the world of corruption would be to rid it of corrupt people.

Everyone should seek to be a comfortable as possible. Use your comfort to cause harm to others, you gotta go.

If I was in the hypothetical Florida from OP, my first mission would be to rid the world of whoever thought we should be limited to those cars.

Okay, if everyone in Florida switched to the least luxurious vehicle that met their needs by themselves, don't you think things would be better for many of them? 

I do have a problem with the original example- it very much depends on the three people.

In both cases, change the people dynamic going into situation, and you get very different results.  For instance, change one engineering based test pilot to a normal, emotional person who does not fully understand what is going on, and their panic will annoy the heck out of the three to the point of ruining the situation.

And in the latter, get three people who enjoy each other's company, and they will be capable of filling the void with fun things to do.  Or sleep.

Also, the 3 in a capsule going to the moon ignores the hundreds of people who were escorting them the whole way, solving the vast majority of the problems along the way.

So the original concept very much depends on the person- some artist are better when they suffer, some are not.  Some chefs run better under massive and abusive pressure, others work better under team work.  Some engineers are better in a collaborative situation, others are better on their own.

In essence, the concept is about perceptions of a handful of people and applying that to the entire population.  Just like most generalizations.

In reply to DaewooOfDeath :

People aren't driving more because of greater comfort, people are driving more because for a lot of people they can only afford to live 20-30-60 miles away from work.  That, and opening up your work radius allows you a larger field of job opportunities.

Also note that having more cars on the road will also increase the number of miles driven.  And there are a lot more people driving today than were even alive in the 60s, or even the 70s and possibly 80s.  Which also crowds the cities and forces people to live a long commute away from work.

I don't think we're doing too bad for the population growth we've had.  You can't place 2 billion human expectations on an 8 billion human planet.

DaewooOfDeath said:

TheRX7Project said:

The only way we would ever rid the world of corruption would be to rid it of corrupt people.

Everyone should seek to be a comfortable as possible. Use your comfort to cause harm to others, you gotta go.

If I was in the hypothetical Florida from OP, my first mission would be to rid the world of whoever thought we should be limited to those cars.

Okay, if everyone in Florida switched to the least luxurious vehicle that met their needs by themselves, don't you think things would be better for many of them?

Maybe I'm failing to understand the concept that making your life worse for yourself makes your life better. I get the idea that in a crisis, people tend to come together and worry less about the little things. For the most part, I'd say this is true. I'd also say it is true that when people have idle time, some of them use it to drum up drama or create anxieties over small things.

But there needs to be comfort that you're trying to achieve, or get back to after said crisis. If there is nothing to achieve, there is no sense putting forth effort.

I'd still rather be in the comfortable minivan getting snippy with my wife than in the demolished Apollo capsule. If getting the chance to get snippy with my wife in the minivan meant fighting my way through the Apollo situation, there would be reason to do it.

In reply to TheRX7Project :

It should be noted that Machiavelli was a flaming shiny happy person who would write what his rich patrons wanted to read.  If they wanted to read "your subjects are better off being poor as berkeley, so make sure to take their money so they can have better lives", he'd write that.

Interesting to note that "The Prince" was a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

I do have a problem with the original example- it very much depends on the three people.

In both cases, change the people dynamic going into situation, and you get very different results.  For instance, change one engineering based test pilot to a normal, emotional person who does not fully understand what is going on, and their panic will annoy the heck out of the three to the point of ruining the situation.

And in the latter, get three people who enjoy each other's company, and they will be capable of filling the void with fun things to do.  Or sleep.

Also, the 3 in a capsule going to the moon ignores the hundreds of people who were escorting them the whole way, solving the vast majority of the problems along the way.

So the original concept very much depends on the person- some artist are better when they suffer, some are not.  Some chefs run better under massive and abusive pressure, others work better under team work.  Some engineers are better in a collaborative situation, others are better on their own.

In essence, the concept is about perceptions of a handful of people and applying that to the entire population.  Just like most generalizations.

Have you ever participated in a difficult, dangerous or painful sport with others over an extended period? Military? Peace Corps? Anything like that? If so, did you find the relationships to be more or less meaningful than, say, the relationships you form with people who like the same kinds of bagels you do?

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to TheRX7Project :

It should be noted that Machiavelli was a flaming shiny happy person who would write what his rich patrons wanted to read.  If they wanted to read "your subjects are better off being poor as berkeley, so make sure to take their money so they can have better lives", he'd write that.

Interesting to note that "The Prince" was a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual.

You ever read The Prince? Discourses on Livy? 

Machiavelli's goal, pretty consistently, is to show how people are and how they can be organized. This is then contrasted with the (infinitely less important) ways they "ought to be" and "are said to be according to 15th century Italian moral prejudice." Since our moral prejudice is, by and large, pretty similar to 15th century Italian prejudice, we feel alot of the same shiny happiness but, to be frank, I think the shocking stuff is mostly being blunt when we're accustomed to a lot more massaging and PR. 

As for mileage, you make a good point, but it's really not what I'm trying to focus on. The idea I think is interesting is that comfort is, often, bad or, even more, corrupt. 

DaewooOfDeath said:

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

I do have a problem with the original example- it very much depends on the three people.

In both cases, change the people dynamic going into situation, and you get very different results.  For instance, change one engineering based test pilot to a normal, emotional person who does not fully understand what is going on, and their panic will annoy the heck out of the three to the point of ruining the situation.

And in the latter, get three people who enjoy each other's company, and they will be capable of filling the void with fun things to do.  Or sleep.

Also, the 3 in a capsule going to the moon ignores the hundreds of people who were escorting them the whole way, solving the vast majority of the problems along the way.

So the original concept very much depends on the person- some artist are better when they suffer, some are not.  Some chefs run better under massive and abusive pressure, others work better under team work.  Some engineers are better in a collaborative situation, others are better on their own.

In essence, the concept is about perceptions of a handful of people and applying that to the entire population.  Just like most generalizations.

Have you ever participated in a difficult, dangerous or painful sport with others over an extended period? If so, did you find the relationships to be more or less meaningful than, say, the relationships you form with people who like the same kinds of bagels you do?

My most meaningful relationship right now is largely based on having the same sense of humor and general attitude.  We share absolutely nothing else in common, no shared hobbies aside from "berkeley life, adulting is challenging, let's just hang out" and remembering that Animanaics! was awesome.  Mostly we nerd at each other and marvel that the other one exists and feels affection.

TheRX7Project said:

 

Maybe I'm failing to understand the concept that making your life worse for yourself makes your life better. I get the idea that in a crisis, people tend to come together and worry less about the little things. For the most part, I'd say this is true. I'd also say it is true that when people have idle time, some of them use it to drum up drama or create anxieties over small things.

But there needs to be comfort that you're trying to achieve, or get back to after said crisis. If there is nothing to achieve, there is no sense putting forth effort.

I'd still rather be in the comfortable minivan getting snippy with my wife than in the demolished Apollo capsule. If getting the chance to get snippy with my wife in the minivan meant fighting my way through the Apollo situation, there would be reason to do it.

Imagine you win the lottery and after taxes/etc you have a million dollars in your pocket, no strings attached.

In the ozio situation, you take this million dollars and get yourself a nice, diamond studded toilet seat cover, a closet full of mink coats, ostrich skin couches and a chrome Rolls Royce. Do you think this is likely to make you a more virtuous, useful, powerful, or good person?

In the self imposed necessitas situation, you use the money to take a year off work, train vigorously and prepare for an ascent of Mt. Everest, a difficult and dangerous situation that will be painful. Or, you take that money and start a business, a difficult and dangerous thing that will be stressful and difficult. Or, you take that million dollars, go into your garage and MAKE a chrome Rolls Royce for the simple reason that making a chrome Rolls Royce is difficult. Do you think these things are likely to make you a more virtuous, useful, powerful or good person?

Or to bring it back to the cars, do you think that, perhaps, part of the reason race cars feel so good is because they demand a ton of work, difficulty, preparation and courage to prepare and operate? Wouldn't they kind of suck if they maintained themselves, kept you perfectly safe and could be operated effectively by anyone?

DaewooOfDeath said:

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

I do have a problem with the original example- it very much depends on the three people.

In both cases, change the people dynamic going into situation, and you get very different results.  For instance, change one engineering based test pilot to a normal, emotional person who does not fully understand what is going on, and their panic will annoy the heck out of the three to the point of ruining the situation.

And in the latter, get three people who enjoy each other's company, and they will be capable of filling the void with fun things to do.  Or sleep.

Also, the 3 in a capsule going to the moon ignores the hundreds of people who were escorting them the whole way, solving the vast majority of the problems along the way.

So the original concept very much depends on the person- some artist are better when they suffer, some are not.  Some chefs run better under massive and abusive pressure, others work better under team work.  Some engineers are better in a collaborative situation, others are better on their own.

In essence, the concept is about perceptions of a handful of people and applying that to the entire population.  Just like most generalizations.

Have you ever participated in a difficult, dangerous or painful sport with others over an extended period? Military? Peace Corps? Anything like that? If so, did you find the relationships to be more or less meaningful than, say, the relationships you form with people who like the same kinds of bagels you do?

Why does  that matter?

For any of those, you will find people who thrive under pressure, or thrive under no pressure/ fail under pressure, fail with no pressure.  You never hear of the military failures under pressure, do you?  They happen.  Oh, and NASA has failed under pressure, too- cherry picking one example of an extraordinary thing does not tell the whole story.  Let alone the number of families who have driven thousands of miles at once at complete peace- mine did back when I was a kid and we had to drive the entire country to see family.

You can compare how Ferrari and Mercedes teams have approached F1 over entire hybrid era, and see incredibly different results under the same situation, with the same financing, same rules.  The clear example of how the generalization does not work- Ferrari cheated to get more power, and Mercedes reacted to that by legally making an even more powerful engine.  Completely different outcomes because different people manage things differently.

If you want to apply this generalization to yourself, feel free.  It fails when you apply it to everyone.